title: Case T-345/04: Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/55

         Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-345/04)
   (2004/C 262/102)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 August 2004 by the Italian Republic
   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following decisions:

               —

               the memorandum of 17 June 2004 No D (2004) 4074 concerning DOCUP Ob 2 — Lombardy Region 2000-2006 (No. CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014) — Certification of the intermediate statement of expenses and claim for payment, received on 17 June 2004, by which the European Commission — Directorate General Regional Policy — Regional intervention in France, Greece, Italy, transmitted the following decision: ‘the Commission therefore requests the submission of the intermediate statement of expenses and the claim for payment in question together with the following information in respect of every measure providing for an aid scheme:

                           —

                           total amount of advances paid

                           —

                           amount of the advances paid which are eligible for structural fund contribution as previously stated.

                     In the absence of such information, the Commission will not be able to make the payment requested in respect of the measures relating to the aid scheme of the DocUP Lombardy 2000-2006 Objective 2’ together with all other connected and prior acts;

               —

               the memorandum of 14 July 2004, n. JE/OA D (2004) 5446, concerning DOCUP OB 2 — Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region 2000-2006 (No. CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 013) — Certification of the intermediate statement of expenses and claim for payment, received on 15 July 2004, by which the European Commission — Directorate General Regional Policy — Regional intervention in France, Greece, Italy, transmitted the following decision: ‘the Commission therefore requests the submission of the intermediate statement of expenses and the claim for payment in question together with the following information in respect of every measure providing for an aid scheme:

                           —

                           total amount of advances paid

                           —

                           amount of the advances paid which are eligible for structural fund contribution as previously stated.

                     In the absence of such information, the Commission will not be able to make the payment requested in respect of the measures relating to the aid scheme of the DocUP Friuli-Venezia Giulia 2000-2006 Objective 2’ together with all other connected and prior acts;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   This action has been brought against the memoranda of the European Commission of 17 June 2004 No D (2004) 4074 (DOCUP Regione Lombardia) and of 14 July 2004 No JE/OA D (2004) 5446 (DOCUP Friuli Venezia Giulia), both of which seek to subject the procedure for the payment of advances in the context of aid schemes to conditions which are not required by the legislation in force with the purpose of limiting improperly the expenditure which is eligible for the use of the structural funds concerned.
   In support of its claims, the Italian Republic alleges:

               —

               breach of essential procedural requirements inasmuch as the legal basis is incorrect, there is no statement of reasons and the decision-making procedure has not been complied with. The applicant points out in that regard that the contested acts make no mention of the provision of law enabling them to be adopted.

         Further to the breach of the obligation to provide reasons, the applicant also claims that the contested memoranda were not adopted in accordance with the correct procedure provided by the Commission's rules of procedure.

               —

               infringement of Article 32 of the basic regulation (Council Regulation No 1260/99) and of Commission Regulation No 448/04 which make subject payment of advances only to evidence that the State which is the final beneficiary has paid the relevant monies to the final recipients of the investment.

               —

               infringement of the rules governing eligibility of the expenditure laid down in the basic regulation. According to the applicant, the relevant regulation in the present case precludes the approach adopted by the Commission, according to which the rules on eligibility of expenditure must be understood to mean that they subject eligibility of expenditure to evidence that the financing has actually been used to carry out a project which fulfils the purpose for which the aid was granted.

               —

               infringement of the rules governing financial control (Article 38 of the basic regulation and implementing provisions) which do not provide for the requirements alleged by the Commission.

               —

               breach of the principle of proportionality, in view of the fact that the Commission requires evidence beyond that which is required and necessary.

               —

               infringement of Regulation No 448/04 by breach of the principles of equality and legal certainty and contradiction in the contested memorandum.

               —

               infringement of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 for failure to observe the accounting rules provided for therein.

               —

               breach of the principle of simplified procedures.


title: Case T-145/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Device of two parallel stripes)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/35

         Action brought on 3 March 2014 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Device of two parallel stripes)
   (Case T-145/14)
   2014/C 129/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: adidas (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Case R 1208/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The mark (‘other type of mark’) for footwear in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 398 141

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations Nos 3 517 646, 3 517 612, 3 517 588, 3 517 661, 4 269 072, 6 081 889; German trade mark registrations Nos 944 624, 944 623, 399 50 559, 897 134; International trade mark registration No 391 692 for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28; and non-registered mark/sign used in the course of trade in Germany

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Appeal brought on 7 January 1998 by Henri de Compte against the judgment delivered on 5 November 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125) Henri de Compte v. European Parliament (Case C-2/98 P)

text:
C 113/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 15 January 1998                              Ð declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to
                                                                          comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in
in Case C-403/95 P: Dieter Obst v. Commission of the                      Case C-45/91 Commission v. Greece and, in particular,
                  European Communities (1)                                by not having yet drawn up and implemented the
                                                                          plans and programmes needed for the disposal of
(Appeal Ð Official Ð Recruitment procedure Ð Article 45
                                                                          waste and of toxic waste in the area of Chania so that
of the Staff Regulations Ð Statement of reasons Ð
                                                                          human health is not endangered and the environment
Compensation for damage Ð Appeal clearly inadmissible
                                                                          is not harmed, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                        and unfounded)
                                                                          fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the Treaty,
                         (98/C 113/13)
                                                                     Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    In its judgment of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91
                                                                     Commission v. Greece [1992] ECR I-2509, the Court of
                                                                     Justice found that the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil
In Case C-403/95 P: Dieter Obst, an official of the                  its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Directive
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) and Articles 5
Everberg, Belgium, represented by Lothar Mahlberg,                   and 12 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March
Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for service c/o                  1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (2).
Marianne Moritz, 25a rue de Schönfels, Bridel,
Luxembourg Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 October 1995 in             The Commission stated in its reasoned opinion of 6 August
Case T-562/93 Obst v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC II-                   1996 that, four years after delivery of that judgment, the
737, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other              Hellenic Republic had not taken the necessary measures to
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the                    comply with it. The Commission points out that, in
European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall, assisted by             accordance with the Court's case-law (see Case 169/87
Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    Commission v. France [1988] ECR 4093 and Case 375/89
composed of H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                  Commission v. Belgium [1991] ECR I-383), the process of
J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;                 complying with a judgment of the Court which establishes
M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations
given an order the operative part of which is as follows:            must be initiated at once and be completed as soon as
                                                                     possible. It thus cannot be disputed that the Hellenic
                                                                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
1. the appeal is dismissed;                                          Article 171 of the Treaty. In addition, the Commission
                                                                     claims pursuant to Article 171(2) of the Treaty that the
                                                                     Court should impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty
2. the appellant shall pay the costs.
                                                                     payment of ECU 24 600 per day of default in respect of
                                                                     the failure to comply with the judgment of the Court.
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 8.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978, p. 43.
Action brought on 17 November 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                Appeal brought on 7 January 1998 by Henri de Compte
                       (Case C-387/97)                               against the judgment delivered on 5 November 1997 by
                                                                     the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                         (98/C 113/14)                               European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125) Henri de
                                                                                Compte v. European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-2/98 P)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                        (98/C 113/15)
on 17 November 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,              the European Communities on 7 January 1998 by Henri
also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 de Compte, represented by Henri Ferretti, of the
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/7
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            resources in accordance with environmental criteria. It
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                      should have been adopted pursuant to the procedure laid
Hardt, against the judgment delivered on 5 November                  down in Article 130s(2) of the Treaty, which requires the
1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance             Council to act unanimously. Consequently, the conclusion
of the European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125)                    of international agreements on such matters likewise
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament.                              requires such unanimity (second sentence of Article
                                                                     228(2)).
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     The position adopted by the Council, which followed the
Ð declare the appeal to be admissible and well-founded,              Commission's proposal, disregards Article 130s(2) as
                                                                     regards measures relating to the management of water
Ð set aside the judgment of 5 November 1997 of the                   resources. The fact that the contested decision was
     Court of First Instance (1),                                    approved on an incorrect legal basis means that it is
                                                                     automatically void.
Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
     order that it may declare the application for revision          (1) OJ L 342, 12.12.1997, p. 18.
     to be admissible,
Ð order the Parliament to pay the costs of the present
     proceedings and of those before the Court of First
     Instance.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1997, in the case of The Queen against Secretary
Unjustified failure to acknowledge as a new fact a                   of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
document drafted by the Rapporteur of the Budgetary                                               Savas
Control Committee of the European Parliament detailing
                                                                                (Case C-37/98)
the case of the Members' cash office and contesting point
by point the audit documentation drawn up by the                                             (98/C 113/17)
Parliament authorities with a view to proving the
appellant's guilt.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Divisional
( ) In Case T-26/89 (125) (OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 17).
 1
                                                                     Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 24 April 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 1998,
                                                                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                     Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                     Abdulnasir Savas, on the following questions.
Action brought on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                1. Is the agreement establishing an Association between
                                                                         the European Economic Community and Turkey,
                        (Case C-36/98)
                                                                         signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 (the
                         (98/C 113/16)                                   Agreement') together with the additional Protocol to
                                                                         the Agreement signed at Brussels on 23 November
                                                                         1970 (the additional Protocol') to be interpreted as
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         conferring benefits on a Turkish national who has (a)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         entered or (b) remained in the territory of a Member
Communities on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         State in breach of the immigration law of that
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, abogado
                                                                         Member State?
del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                     2. If the answer to either part of the first question is yes'
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              does (a) Article 13 of the Agreement (b) Article 41 of
                                                                         the additional Protocol have direct effect within the
Ð annul Council Decision 97/825/EC of 24 November                        national legal systems of Member States?
     1997 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on
     Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable use of           3. Does the Agreement together with the additional
     the river Danube (1),                                               Protocol prohibit the application by a Member State
                                                                         of a provision in its national law which refuses that
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.                                    Turkish national leave to remain on the territory of
                                                                         that Member State on the sole ground that his leave to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      enter or remain in the territory has expired?
The Kingdom of Spain considers that the Convention is                4. Where, despite the provisions of its national law, the
clearly designed to provide for the management of water                  competent authority in a Member State considers, in


               15.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/11

         Action brought on 21 May 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-4/10)
   2010/C 191/09
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 May 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, represented by Dr Andrea Entner-Koch, acting as Agent for the Principality of Liechtenstein, EEA Coordination Unit, Austrasse 79/Europark, FL-9490 Vaduz.
   The Principality of Liechtenstein requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

               2.

               In the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision;
               and

               3.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 declared that the tax rules applicable to captive (re)insurers in Liechtenstein, under Articles 82(a) and 88(d)(3) of the Liechtenstein Tax Act, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, as they taxed captive (re)insurers more favourably than ‘normal insurance companies’. The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from the captive (re)insurers as from 6 November 2001.

               —

               The applicant contends that the tax provisions at stake do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

               —

               The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           erred when it applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to the taxation of captives under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, and when it ordered the repayment of the alleged unlawful aid from the captive (re)insurances as from 6 November 2001;

                           —

                           wrongfully applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement towards captives, given their special nature and restricted ambit of activities;

                           —

                           did not provide adequate reasoning in its contested Decision, as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.


title: Case C-177/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n o 12 de Sevilla (Spain)) — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Application of the framework agreement to the civil service — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 12 de Sevilla (Spain)) — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía
   (Case C-177/10) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Application of the framework agreement to the civil service - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2011/C 311/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 12 de Sevilla

      Parties

      Applicant: Francisco Javier Rosado Santana

      Defendant: Consejería de Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Clause 4 of the Annex (principle of non-discrimination) — Scope — Discrimination held to be permissible by the constitutional court — Obligations of the national court

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, set out in the Annex thereto, must be interpreted, on the one hand, as applying to contracts and relationships concluded with the public authorities and other public-sector bodies and, on the other, as precluding any difference in treatment as between career civil servants and comparable interim civil servants of a Member State, based solely on the ground that the latter are employed for a fixed term, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds for the purposes of clause 4(1) of the framework agreement.

               2.

               Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding account not being taken of periods of service completed as an interim civil servant in a public administration for the purposes of permitting such a person, who has subsequently become a career civil servant, to obtain an internal promotion available only to career civil servants, unless that exclusion is justified by objective grounds for the purposes of clause 4(1) of that agreement. The mere fact that the interim civil servant completed those periods of service under a fixed-term employment contract or relationship does not constitute such an objective ground.

               3.

               The primary law of the European Union, Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement are to be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which provides that, where an action brought by a career civil servant challenging a decision rejecting his candidature for a competition is based on the fact that the promotion procedure was contrary to clause 4 of the framework agreement, that action must be brought within two months of the publication of the competition notice. Nevertheless, such a time-limit could not be relied upon against a career civil servant, who has been a candidate in that competition, who has been admitted to the tests and whose name was placed on the definitive list of successful candidates for that competition, if that were liable to render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred by the framework agreement. In those circumstances, time for the purposes of the two-month time-limit could run only from notification of the decision annulling the civil servant’s admission to that competition and his appointment as a career civil servant in the higher group.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-539/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Ziegler v Commission

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/16

         Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Ziegler v Commission
   (Case T-539/12)
   2013/C 55/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Hold that the European Commission has incurred the non-contractual liability of the European Union as regards the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 472 000, together with interest from 11 March 2008 until payment in full, and the sum of EUR 112 872,50 per year from 11 March 2008, together with interest until payment in full;

               —

               Order the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The damage in respect of which the applicant seeks compensation from the European Union includes two separate heads of claim.
   Firstly, the applicant claims that it has suffered a loss by reason of the fine of EUR 9 200 000, together with interest at the rate of 7.60 % per annum, imposed on it by the Commission’s decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, for an infringement for which the European Union was partly responsible. The damage allegedly caused to the applicant stems from dual unlawful acts by the European Union:

               —

               On the one hand, by making reimbursement of the removals costs to its officials subject to their obtaining three different quotes for removals and by refraining from exercising any control over the carrying out of that obligation when it was perfectly well aware of the lapses to which that practice gave rise, the European Union created a regulatory context favourable to the commission of the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for which the removal companies were then penalised. In so doing, the European Union failed in its duty of care and infringed the fundamental right of the applicant to sound administration.

               —

               On the other, by seeking cover quotes from the applicant, the European Union officials have, as agents, directly incited the applicant to commit the infringement for which it has been penalised. Through its officials, the European Union thus contributed to the infringement of Article 101 TFEU which it then penalised and, moreover, disregarded the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

         Secondly, since the adoption of the decision of 11 March 2008, the applicant is suffering a significant loss of earnings because, as the practice of cover quotes has not ceased, its refusal to respond favourably to such requests has the effect of removing it from the markets concerned, to the extent that the applicant no longer supplies removal services to more than a very limited number of officials of the European institutions. It is a failure on the part of the European Union to fulfil its duty of care which is the cause of the loss thus suffered by the applicant.


title: Case C-453/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 23 October 2003, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) ABNA Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a partnership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd, 4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd, 5) Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, 6) Primary Diets Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health, 2) Food Standards Agency

text:
C 7/22                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.1.2004
                (i)   do the transactions between B and connec-            trative Court) dated 23 October 2003, which was received at
                      ted companies within the Member State                the Court Registry on 27 October 2003, for a preliminary
                      (‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’) qualify for VAT purposes          ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) ABNA
                      as supplies made by or to those companies            Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a partnership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd,
                      in the course of their economic activities;          4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd, 5) Nutrition Services (International)
                      if not,                                              Ltd, 6) Primary Diets Ltd and 1) Secretary of State for Health,
                                                                           2) Food Standards Agency on the following question:
                (ii) what factors should be considered in
                      determining the identity of the supplier of
                      the slot gaming services?                            Are Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/02 (1) and/or Article 1(4)
                                                                           of Directive 2002/02, to the extent that it amends
      4.   a)   Is there a principle of abuse of right which               Article 5c(2)(a) of Directive 79/373 (2) by requiring percentages
                (independently of the interpretation given to              to be listed, invalid by reason of
                the VAT Directives) is capable of precluding the
                advantage sought in a case such as the present?            a.    the absence of a legal basis in Article 152(4)(b) EC;
           b)   If so, how does it operate in the circumstances            b.    infringement of the fundamental right to property;
                such as the present?
                                                                           c.    infringement of the principle of proportionality?
      5.   a)   What significance, if any, should be attached to
                the fact that A, C and D are not subsidiaries of
                B and that B does not control A, C and D either
                legally or economically?                                   (1) Directive 2002/02/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                               Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/
                                                                               EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing
           b)   Would it make a difference to any of the                       Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ L 63, 06.03.2002, p. 23).
                answers given above if the type of management              (2) Directive 79/373/EEC of the Council of 2 April 1979 on the
                undertaken by B at its business establishment                  marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ L 86, 06.04.1979,
                outside the territory of the Community were                    p. 30).
                necessary for the provision of slot gaming
                services to customers and neither A, C nor D
                performs those activities?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 326, 21.11.1986, p. 40.
                                                                           Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-456/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                                                 (2004/C 7/36)
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
23 October 2003, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) ABNA Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a part-
nership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd, 4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd,                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
5) Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, 6) Primary Diets                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October
Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health, 2) Food                      2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                        Standards Agency                                   represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent.
                         (Case C-453/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2004/C 7/35)                                   —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Directive 1998/44/EC (1) of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-                      of that directive;


title: Case C-600/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by National Iranian Tanker Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2016 in Case T-207/15: National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/28

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by National Iranian Tanker Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2016 in Case T-207/15: National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-600/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: National Iranian Tanker Company (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester QC, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley, C. Murphy, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 in National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union, (Case T-207/15);

               —

               determine the case before the General Court and in particular to:

                           —

                           annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 (2), insofar as each applies to the Appellant;

                           —

                           alternatively, declare that (a) Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (3) (as amended) and (b) Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (4) (as amended), are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the Appellant by reason of illegality; and

               —

               order that the Respondent pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and finality, or the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the EU Charter.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the criteria for designation were satisfied as regards the Appellant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellant’s fundamental rights was proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in rejecting the Appellant’s alternative argument that a broad interpretation of the designation criterion would render it disproportionate.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

      OJ L 39, p. 18

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

      OJ L 39, p. 3

      (3)  2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP

      OJ L 195, p. 39

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010

      OJ L 88, p. 1


title: Case T-22/02: Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/52               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH                     Grounds of claim:             —     incorrect application of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                         Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                —     infringement of Regulation
                          (Case T-20/02)                                                                     (EC) No 40/94 on account
                                                                                of failure to comply with
                                                                                Article 12 thereof.
                        (2002/C 109/100)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)           Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo Chemi-
30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH, of Wehringen (Germ-                  cal Co., Ltd against the Commission of the European
any), represented by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer. A further party to                                        Communities
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was SCA Nutrition
Ltd, of Lichfield (United Kingdom).                                                                (Case T-22/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2002/C 109/101)
—     annul Decision R 264/2002-2 adopted on 27 November                                   (Language of the case: English)
      2001 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo
                                                                         Chemical Co., Ltd, represented by Mr Martin Klusmann
                                                                         and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Düsseldorf (Germany).
Applicant for the Com-         the applicant                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     annul the defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695-final of
The Community trade            the pictorial mark ‘HAPPY DOG’                  21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
mark applied for:              for goods in Class 31 (feeding-                 Vitamins as far as Sumitomo Chemical Company is
                               stuffs for dogs) — application                  concerned
                               No 290577
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       SCA Nutrition Ltd
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade-mark            right    the United Kingdom verbal and
opposed:                       pictorial marks ‘HAPPIDOG’ for            The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in
                               goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs          case T-15/02 BASF/Commission (1).
                               for dogs)
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the trade mark               In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:
sition Division:               application
                                                                         —     The Commission was time-barred from taking the prohib-
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal             ition Decision. Contrary to the defendant’s view that the
Appeal:                                                                        rules on limitation periods have no bearing on the
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/53
      entitlement of the defendant to investigate cartel cases and        Chemicals Co. Ltd., represented by Mr. Martin Klusmann
      to adopt prohibition Decisions, the rules on limitation             and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
      in Regulation No. 2988/74 (2) should be considered                  Düsseldorf (Germany).
      applicable to declaratory prohibition decisions.
—     The adoption of a prohibition decision is time-barred               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      under general principles of Community Law. It is stated
      in this regard that where there is no doubt that the alleged        —     annul the Defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695 final of
      conduct was terminated more than five years before an                     21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
      investigation was opened, there is no need and no                         Vitamins, so far as Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd. is
      justification for a declaratory decision, because there is                concerned;
      no place for a cease and desist order, as contained in
      Article 2 of the contested Decision, or any other form of           —     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
      penalty to be imposed on the applicant by the defendant.
      Alternatively, the rationale for limitation periods in the
      European Union is that after a certain period of time it is
      in the interest of the proper functioning of the legal              Pleas in law and main arguments
      system that infringements of the law should no longer be
      investigated or lead to any form of ‘punishment’ of the
      party concerned.                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
                                                                          upon in Case T-22/02 (Sumitomo Chemical/Commission, not
                                                                          yet published in the OJ).
—     The defendant was not competent within the meaning of
      the second paragraph of Article 230 EC to adopt the
      contested Decision, as it thereby exceeded its powers
      under the Treaty and Regulation No. 17/62. The defend-
      ant is not empowered by Article 3 of Regulation No. 17,
      or by any other provision, to adopt a declaratory decision
      where the infringement has already been terminated
      outside the limitation period provided for in Article 1 of          Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena Lebe-
      Regulation No. 2988/74.                                             def-Caponi against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-24/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/103)
(1) Notice not yet published in the OJ.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974
    concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement                         (Language of the case: French)
    of actions under the rules of the European Economic Community
    relating to transport and competition (OJ L 319, 29.11.1974,
    p. 1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena
                                                                          Lebedef-Caponi, residing at Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine
Chemicals Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the Euro-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        pean Communities
                                                                          —     annul the express decision No 40263 of 6 November
                           (Case T-23/02)                                       2001 by which the appointing authority replied to the
                                                                                applicant’s complaint No 334/01 of 18 July 2001 by
                                                                                fixing the compensation for the non-material damage
                         (2002/C 109/102)                                       suffered by her in the sum of 1 500 euros;
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     award the applicant the sum of BEF 800 000, assessed as
                                                                                amounting now to the sum of BEF 1 000 000, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
                                                                                result of the lateness in drawing up her staff report
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       (placed belatedly in her personal file) for the period 1993-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      1995 and the lateness in drawing up her staff reports for
European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine                          the periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999;


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Joined Cases C-261/03 and C-262/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l'Emiglia-Romagna in Allevamenti Associati Srl v Regione Emilia-Romagna and Latteria Sociale Moderna Soc. Coop. Arl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA) and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Milk and milk products — Additional levy scheme — Treatment and processing by a dairy under a work contract — Concepts of ‘delivery’ and ‘direct sale’)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/3

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Joined Cases C-261/03 and C-262/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l'Emiglia-Romagna in Allevamenti Associati Srl v Regione Emilia-Romagna and Latteria Sociale Moderna Soc. Coop. Arl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA) and Others (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Milk and milk products - Additional levy scheme - Treatment and processing by a dairy under a work contract - Concepts of ‘delivery’ and ‘direct sale’)
   (2005/C 69/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-261/03 and C-262/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l'Emiglia-Romagna (Italy), made by decisions of 6 May 2003, received at the Court on 17 June 2003, in the proceedings Allevamenti Associati Srl v Regione Emilia-Romagna, supported by Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Latteria Sociale Moderna Soc. Coop. arl (C-261/03), and Latteria Sociale Moderna Soc. Coop. arl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Servizio Provinciale Agricoltura di Reggio Emilia, Regione Emilia-Romagna, and Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), supported by Allevamenti Associati Srl (C-262/03) – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of N. Colneric (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Juhász, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; María Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, Registrar, made an order on 18 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Articles 1, 2 and 9(g) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of the determination of milk quotas and the application of the additional levy, the fact that the milk-producing undertaking transfers, for payment, certain quantities of milk to third parties without relinquishing title to them, under a work contract relating to the treatment and processing of that milk into cheese, butter and skim milk, must be classified as delivery.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 March 1998 in Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal v. Commission of the European Communities (Access to information - Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom - Refusal of access - Scope of the exception relating to the protection of the public interest - Court proceedings - European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6)

text:
C 137/14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.5.98
1. dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 February 1998
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             (Officials Ð Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations Ð
                                                                     Claims which are manifestly inadmissible or wholly
                                                                                unfounded in law)
                                                                                (98/C 137/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     In Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou, an official of
                      of 19 March 1998                               the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
in Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal v. Commission of
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
               the European Communities (1)
                                                                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
(Access to information Ð Commission Decision 94/90/                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ECSC/EC/Euratom Ð Refusal of access Ð Scope of the                   Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) Ð application, first,
exception relating to the protection of the public interest          for annulment of the decision of the Commission of
Ð Court proceedings Ð European Convention on Human                   8 January 1996 classifying the applicant in grade A 7,
                       Rights, Article 6)                            step 5, and implicitly refusing to classify her in grade A 6,
                                                                     second, for annulment of the decision of 28 August 1996
                        (98/C 137/29)                                rejecting a complaint against that decision and, third, for
                                                                     compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                         composed of A. Saggio, President, and B. Vesterdorf and J.
                                                                     Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     13 February 1998, the operative part of which is as
In Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal, residing in                     follows:
Kraainem, Belgium, represented initially by Caroline P.
Bleeker and Laura Y. J. M. Parret, of the Hague Bar and
                                                                     1. the action is dismissed;
the Brussels Bar respectively, and subsequently by Laura
Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, supported              2. the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra
and Johannes S. van den Oosterkamp), against                         (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Wouter Wils and Ulrich Wölker) Ð application for the
annulment of the Commission's Decision of 29 March
1996 refusing the applicant access to letters sent by the
Directorate-General for Competition to national courts in
the context of the notice on cooperation between national                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                    of 28 January 1998
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh              in Case T-172/97: Camar Srl v. Commission of the
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                               European Communities (1)
judgment on 19 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                                                                     Bananas Ð Application for the allocation of additional
                                                                     import licences Ð Action for a declaration of failure to
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     act Ð Action for damages Ð No need to adjudicate Ð
                                                                                Removal from the Register)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                                     (98/C 137/31)
    defendant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its                 In Case T-172/97: Camar Srl, having its registered office
    own costs.                                                       in Florence (Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ,
                                                                     assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Hubertus van Vliet, Paolo Ziotti and Alberto Dal


title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bösche against the European Parliament (Case T-128/97)

text:
No C 212/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant assembles bicycles in France under its own              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
brand name ' Starway' and under the brand names of its                in Case T-16/97 P ). '
customers for bicycles made to order.
                                                                       1 OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
This action is for the annulment of Article 2 of Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 of 10 January 1997 extending
the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
( EEC ) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from
the People's Republic of China, in so far as it applies to            Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman
imports by the applicant.                                                           against the European Commission
                                                                                ( Case T-l 16/97 )
The applicant considers that the Council has infringed
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/56 )
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 by extending the anti-dumping duty                                   (Language of the case: French)
applicable to imports of bicycles to imports of parts of
bicycles without the conditions in Article 13 (2 ) of that            An action against the European Commission was brought
regulation, and particularly Article 13 (2 ) ( b ) thereof,           before the Court of First Instance of the European
being fulfilled. The Council wrongly concluded that                   Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman,
bicycle parts originating in China imported by the                    residing in Riga ( Latvia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
applicant during the period of the investigation constituted          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
 assembled product.                                                    Rue de Cessange .
The applicant maintains, moreover, that, contrary to                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Article 190 of the Treaty, the contested regulation is not
 supported by an adequate statement of reasons, in that the           — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996
 grounds relied on to justify the extension of the anti                   rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
 dumping duty to the imports of bicycle parts by the                       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of
 applicant bear no logical relation to the conclusion they                 the Staff Regulations,
 are alleged to support.
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                           expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne                       proceedings.
                against the European Commission
                         ( Case T-l 15/97)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                           ( 97/C 212/55 )
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       in Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
                  (Language of the case: French)
  An action against the European Commission was brought                (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
  before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne,
  residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the
  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche against
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-128/97 )
  — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996                                                      97/C 212/57
       rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of                        (Language of the case: French)
       the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
  — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
       adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                    Communities on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche, residing
       expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
       proceedings .                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/29
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                from the date on which she was retired until her
                                                                            reinstatement, together with interest at the legal rate
— annul the decision of the Parliament not to promote                       of 8 % per annum,
     the applicant to Grade LA 4 for the promotions year
     1996 ,                                                            — annul, if necessary, the letter of 9 October 1996 from
                                                                            Klaus Hansch, President of the European Parliament,
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                    informing the applicant of the Bureau's decision,
                                                                            referred to above,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — order the European Parliament to pay the costs in
The applicant, an official in Grade LA 5 , challenges the                   their entirety.
European Parliament's decision not to promote him to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Grade LA 4 for the promotions year 1996 . He maintains
that the Parliament has offered no explanation in                      The applicant states that the Court of First Instance
justification of its refusal to promote him, even though the           annulled a decision taken by the Parliament in 1994,
consultative committee on promotions had been                          retiring her from her post ( 1 ). Following that judgment,
recommending him since the promotions year 1995 . In his               the Parliament adopted a new decision by which it
submission , the contested decision is therefore vitiated by           'confirms' its 1994 decision retiring the applicant from her
a total failure to state reasons .
                                                                       post and rejects her candidature for the posts of Director
                                                                       General in DG I and of Special Adviser at the Epicentre in
The applicant further submits that the Parliament either               Brussels .
failed to carry out a comparative examination of the
merits of the applicant and other officials eligible for               The applicant maintains, first, that the Parliament did not
promotion to Grade LA 4, or carried out such an                        give effect to all the legal consequences entailed in the
examination without taking account of his staff reports                judgment of the Court of First Instance since, by virtue of
and without seeking information on his merits allowing                 being annulled, the unlawful decision adopted in 1994 is
their ' notional absence' to be compensated for. By                    retrospectively deemed never to have existed . Thus the
adopting the contested decision, the Parliament therefore              applicant should have been restored to the same legal
infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, committed a             position as the one she had at the time when the annulled
manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of            decision was adopted, and the Parliament was not entitled
equality of treatment between officials eligible for                   to use that decision as the basis for the decision contested
promotion.                                                             in the present case. Thus the Parliament has acted in
                                                                       contravention of Article 176 of the EC Treaty and the
                                                                       general principle of res judicata.
                                                                       Article 25 , second paragraph, and Article 50 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations have also been infringed, in that the contested
 Action brought on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gomez de                    decision does not enable the grounds for the applicant's
            Enterria against the European Parliament                   retirement from her post to be ascertained with certainty
                         ( Case T-131 /97 )                            and precision, nor does it establish that such a step was in
                                                                       the interests of the service, which would have enabled
                           ( 97/C 212/58
                                                                        Article 50 of the Staff Regulations to be properly invoked .
                 (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also emphasizes that the manner of the
                                                                        decision's adoption gave her no opportunity to defend her
 An action against the European Parliament was brought                  interests effectively, since the appointing authority ( in this
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                     case, the Bureau of the Parliament) disregarded the
 Communities on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gomez de                        observations which she had submitted concerning the issue
 Enterria, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric                  in question, which amounts to a breach of her right to a
 Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          fair hearing.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
 Fort Rheinsheim .                                                      Furthermore, the contested decision is vitiated, in that it is
                                                                        ultra vires and involves a misuse of powers, in so far as it
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            was adopted on grounds other than the interests of the
                                                                        service stipulated by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations
 — annul the decision taken by the Bureau of the                        and in circumstances such that there is no legally
      European Parliament at its meeting of 15 and 16 July              acceptable justification for it . The applicant concludes that
      1996 ( Ref.: PE 251.357/BUR) in its capacity as                   the Parliament used its powers for purposes other than
      appointing authority,                                             those for which they were conferred .
 — as a consequence of the forthcoming judgment, rule                   Lastly, the applicant argues that the Parliament did not
      that, in accordance with Article 176 of the Treaty of             fulfil its obligation to take decisions affecting the personal
      Rome, the appointing authority must reinstate the                 circumstances of officials within a reasonable length of
      applicant with full rights, ensuring in particular that           time . The decision adopted by the Bureau at its meeting
      she is restored to the post from which she was retired,           on 15 and 16 July 1996 was not communicated to her
      at the same grade, and paid the salary arrears due                until 9 October 1996 , after she had addressed requests to


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/3

         Appointment of the First Advocate General
   (2007/C 269/05)
   The Court of Justice appointed Mr Poiares Maduro as First Advocate General for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2008, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure.


title: Case T-11/06: Action brought on  19 January 2006  — Romana Tabacchi v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/48

         Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission
   (Case T-11/06)
   (2006/C 60/90)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties
   Applicant: Romana Tabacchi Spa (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Cesare Rizza)
   Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Substantially reduce the fine imposed on Romana Tabacchi;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs;

               —

               Order any other measure, including any measure of an investigative nature, which it considers appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The object of the present action is the partial annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/C-38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy), limited to the part concerning the calculation of the fine imposed on the applicant, and the resulting reduction of the said fine.
   In that decision, the defendant found that six undertakings operating in Italy in the raw tobacco processing sector had infringed Article 81(1) EC from 1995 until the beginning of 2002, by means of concerted agreements or practices aimed at coordinating their individual purchasing strategies, including through the organisation of regular information exchanges and mutual consultation. In particular, according to the Commission, the processors agreed maximum and average delivery prices for the ‘Burley’ variety of raw tobacco, as well as the volumes of the product to be purchased. The cartel extended to include concerted action on bids in response to public competitive procedures organised by AIMA-Azienda di Stato (the State Corporation AIMA) in 1995 for action to be taken on the agricultural market and by ATI-Azienda Tabacchi Italiani S.p.A. in 1998.
   The Commission also found that, during the period between February 1999 and November 2001, the Associazione Professionale Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani (Italian Professional Association of Tobacco Processors) and the Unione Italiana Tabacco (Italian Tobacco Union) adopted decisions concerning their respective negotiating positions on prices for each grade of each variety of tobacco with a view to entering into inter-business agreements.
   In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:

               —

               Infringement of the principles of equality and proportionality, to the extent to which the Commission omitted, for the purposes of calculating the starting point for the fine, to take into account the fact that the cartel had no, or at most a modest, practical impact on the market;

               —

               The illogicality of the statement of reasons and the infringement of the principle of equal treatment as regards the failure to set progressive amounts for the basic fine in order to adjust it to the size of the undertaking on which the fine is imposed. In particular it maintains, on this point, that the use of the market share for the last full year of the breach should be mitigated and adjusted in all of the cases in which an undertaking's participation in the alleged restrictive practices was marked by interruptions;

               —

               That the finding that the duration of the applicant's participation in the cartel was two years and eight months is the result of a clear error of appraisal;

               —

               That the Commission failed to take account of two mitigating circumstances: the purely passive role played by the applicant in the cartel, and the frequent confusion as to the aims of the agreements;

               —

               That the fine in question, which is almost double its assets, is unjust and disproportionate.


title: Action brought on 2 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-323/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 354/ 19
     broadcasting determine whether a broadcaster qualifies            2 . Are the proceedings of an administrative authority
     to become an active member of the EBU, and in that it                    within the meaning of paragraph 7 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the
     analyses the relevance of the criteria for membership of                 Umweltinformationsgesetz [Law on information on the
     the EBU in the light of the Commission decision .                        environment] preliminary investigation proceedings
                                                                              within the meaning of the third indent of Article 3 ( 2 ) of
— The Court of First Instance was guilty of manifest error                    that Directive ?
     of assessment when it considered that the Commission
     granted an exemption to the rules for EBU membership .            0 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 56 .
     The Commission has in no way granted exemption to
     those rules .
— Manifest error of assessment in so far as it is considered
     in the judgment that the criteria for EBU membership are
     vague, imprecise and liable to be applied in a                    Action brought on 2 October 1996 by the Commission of
     discriminatory manner, whereas, on an objective view,             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     they are appropriate, foreseeable and reasonably                                                   Belgium
     precise .                                                                                Case C-323 /96 )
— Defective reasoning and misinterpretation of Article 85                                           ( 96/C 354/37 )
     in so far as the judgment seems to lay down criteria for
     the grant of exemption to a group of broadcasters                 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     entrusted with a mission of public interest which are so          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     onerous as to make it practically impossible to obtain            2 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
     any exemption whatsoever . The judgment also seriously            Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
     encroaches upon the discretion available to the                   Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     Commission and consequently upon its ability to fulfil            Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its
     its obligations in administering the competition rules.           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(!) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 12 .                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                              its obligations under Directives 89/440/EEC ( ! ) and
                                                                              93/37/EEC ( 2 ), and in particular Articles 7 and 11 of
                                                                              Directive 93/37/EEC in so far as it did not place a notice
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities
Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order                      either for the overall project or for the individual lots for
of that court of 10 July 1996 in the case of Wilhelm                          the construction of a building for the Vlaamse Raad and
Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg ( der Landrat); also                           it did not apply the award procedures in accordance with
participating: der Vertreter des offentlichen Interesses,                     those directives;
                                 Kiel
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                         ( Case C-321 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 354/36 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 According to the Commission, the defendant does not
European Communities by an order of the                                dispute that it infringed Directive 93/37/EEC in connection
Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht [Higher                with the award procedures for the building of the Vlaamse
Administrative Court, Schleswig-Holstein] ( Fourth                     Raad. In contrast, it is clear from various reactions of the
Chamber ) of 10 July 1996 , which was received at the Court            Belgian public authorities that they considered that the
Registry on 1 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the           infringement of the provisions of Directive 93/37/EEC was
case of Wilhelm Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg ( der                   attributable to the inadequate implementation of that
Landrat); also participating: der Vertreter des offentlichen           Directive in Belgian law, namely that the legislative bodies
Interesses [Representative of the Public Interest], Kiel, on           considered that the necessary legal framework was lacking.
the following questions :                                              The defendant's reliance on it itself having incorrectly
                                                                        implemented the Directive in question is however irrelevant,
 1 . Are the observations made by a lower                               since a Member State is not entitled to plead provisions,
      Landschaftspflegebehdrde [ Countryside Protection                 practices or situations of a domestic nature in order to
      Authority] in its capacity as representative of the public        justify its non-compliance with its obligations under
      interest in connection with development consent                   Community law.
      proceedings an administrative measure designed to
      protect the environment within the meaning of                     (>) OJ No L 210 , 21 . 7 . 1989 , p . 1 .
      Article 2 ( a ) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (') of            ( 2 ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 54 .
      7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
      the environment ?


title: Case F-6/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18.4.2013 — Rosenbaum v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18.4.2013 — Rosenbaum v Commission
   (Case F-6/13) (1)

   2013/C 171/87
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 39.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-133/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London): J. R. Bowden, J. L. Chapman, J. J. Doyle v Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd (Organisation of working time — Directive 93/104/EC — Article 1(3) — Scope — Road transport)

text:
10.11.2001              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 317/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
                        of 4 October 2001
                                                                             in Case C-370/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
in Case C-133/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London): J. R. Bowden,                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
J. L. Chapman, J. J. Doyle v Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd (1)               to incorporate Directives 96/49/EC and 96/87/EC into
                                                                                national law)
(Organisation of working time — Directive 93/104/EC —                                                (2001/C 317/12)
           Article 1(3) — Scope — Road transport)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          (2001/C 317/11)
                                                                             In Case C-370/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: D.J. O’Hagan) —
                                                                             application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
                    (Language of the case: English)                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                             with Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
                                                                             approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard
                                                                             to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (OJ 1996 L 235,
In Case C-133/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                p. 25) and Commission Directive 96/87/EC of 13 December
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Employment                       1996 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 96/49
Appeal Tribunal, London, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary                 (OJ 1996 L 335, p. 45), or by failing to inform the Commission
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
J. R. Bowden, J. L. Chapman, J. J. Doyle and Tuffnells Parcels               under those Directives — the Court (First Chamber), composed
Express Ltd — on the interpretation of Article 1(3) of Council               of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón
Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain                   (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307,                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 September 2001, in
p. 18) — the Court, composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                   which it:
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 October 2001, in
which it has ruled:                                                          1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
                                                                                Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of
                                                                                the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of
                                                                                dangerous goods by rail and Commission Directive 96/87/EC
On a proper construction of Article 1(3) of Council Directive
                                                                                of 13 December 1996 adapting to technical progress Council
93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the
                                                                                Directive 96/49/EC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
organisation of working time, all workers employed in the road
                                                                                under those Directives.
transport sector, including office staff, are excluded from the scope of
that Directive.
                                                                             2.   Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.


title: Case C-331/11: Action brought on 30 June 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/4

         Action brought on 30 June 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-331/11)
   2011/C 282/07
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Forms of order sought

               —

               declare that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina — Považský Chlmec waste site without a conditioning plan for the waste site and without adopting a definite decision on whether operations might continue on the basis of the said conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1)

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Žilina — Považský Chlmec waste site is operated without any conditioning plan having been submitted and without the approval of any measures which might be needed on the basis of such a plan. The Commission therefore submits that the Court should declare that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina — Považský Chlmec waste site without a conditioning plan for the waste site and without adopting a definite decision on whether operations might continue on the basis of the said conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.