title: Action brought on 1 April 1998 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-53/98)

text:
C 166/18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.5.98
Ð inaccurate translation of items of evidence                       Action brought on 1 April 1998 by the Netherlands
                                                                          Antilles against the Commission of the European
Ð erroneous assessment of the effects of the formula on                                       Communities
    prices;
                                                                                (Case T-53/98)
Ð the decision ignored the fact that the concerted                                           (98/C 166/45)
    practice was admitted.
In its second head of claim, the applicant advances the                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
following arguments in support of its plea alleging
defective legal assessment of the infringement:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð the infringement was referable to a specific point in             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    time and was not continuous;                                    Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1998
                                                                    by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. Bos and M.
Ð (in the alternative) for the purposes of assessing the            Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
    fine, the period during which the proceeding took               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch,
    place should have been left out of account.                     11 Rue Goethe.
In its third head of claim, the applicant complains that the
fine was incorrectly assessed; it advances the following            The applicant claims that the Court should:
arguments in support of its plea:
Ð insufficient weight was attached to the fact that the             Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of
    defendant's legal submissions were not contested;                    17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences
                                                                         for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,
Ð failure to take account of the fact that a group of                    1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT
    undertakings was involved;                                           originating products (OJ L 349 of 19.12.1997, p. 26);
Ð failure to have regard to the principle of the protection
    of legitimate expectations;                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Ð a token fine was not imposed;
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments:
Ð the infringement was erroneously regarded as having
    taken place over a lengthy period;
                                                                    The applicant seeks annulment of the sugar
Ð the applicant was placed              in   a    particularly      implementation regulation, which lays down the detailed
    disadvantageous position;                                       implementing rules for imports of sugar qualifying under
                                                                    the rules relating to ACP/OCT cumulation of origin in
Ð erroneous assessment of the cooperation afforded by               accordance with Article 108b of the OCT decision.
    the applicant, having regard to the scope thereof; and
Ð the same aspects concerning the apportionment of                  The sugar implementation regulation is intended to secure
    blame were taken into account several times over.               the limitation by the Community of imports of sugar
                                                                    originating, in particular, in the Netherlands Antilles. The
Finally, in its fourth head of claim, the applicant asserts         Commission has restricted trade between the Netherlands
that the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with                Antilles and the Community, contrary to Community law.
Article 4 of the decision are unlawful; in particular, it           Those restrictions must be lifted for the remaining
pleads:                                                             duration of the OCT decision. The application also
                                                                    includes a claim that the legal infringements complained
Ð that they are nugatory;
                                                                    of should not be repeated in the future. Lastly, the
Ð that the provision contained in Article 1 in                      contested regulation imposes serious restrictions on, and
    conjunction with Article 4 of the decision is imprecise;        thus severely affects, an important infant industry' in the
    and                                                             Netherlands Antilles, namely the sugar refining sector.
Ð that Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty affords no
    sufficient legal basis for the provision requiring a            The pleas in law advanced in opposition to the contested
    particular type of conduct in the future.                       regulation allege lack of competence, infringement of
                                                                    essential procedural requirements and infringement of the
Summing up, the applicant therefore asserts that the                Treaty or of rules for the implementation thereof and/or
decision imposing the fine is wholly unlawful; it claims            breach of general principles of Community law, in
that, in any event, the operative part of the decision, as          particular: illegality of Article 101(1) of the OCT decision,
regards Articles 1 and 4 thereof, should be annulled in its         illegality of the origin rules contained in Title I of Annex II
entirety and that the fine imposed on the applicant by              to the OCT decision, illegality of the amending decision
Article 2 of the decision should be substantially reduced.          on which the sugar implementation regulation is based,
                                                                    the fact that the sugar implementation regulation is ultra
                                                                    vires, infringement of Article 234 of the OCT decision,
 ---pagebreak--- 30.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 166/19
infringement of Article 133(1) of the Treaty, infringement         essential procedural requirements and infringement of the
of Article 132(1) of the Treaty in conjunction with                Treaty or of rules for the implementation thereof and/or
Article 102 of the OCT decision, infringement of                   breach of general principles of Community law, in
Article XIII of GATT 1994 and of the WTO Agreement                 particular: illegality of Article 101(1) of the OCT decision,
on import licensing procedures, infringement of                    illegality of the origin rules contained in Title I of Annex II
Article 228(7) of the Treaty and breach of the principle of        to the OCT decision, illegality of the amending decision
proportionality.                                                   on which the sugar implementation regulation is based,
                                                                   the fact that the sugar implementation regulation is ultra
                                                                   vires, infringement of Article 234 of the OCT decision,
                                                                   infringement of Article 133(1) of the Treaty, infringement
                                                                   of Article 132(1) of the Treaty in conjunction with
                                                                   Article 102 of the OCT decision, infringement of
                                                                   Article XIII of GATT 1994 and of the WTO Agreement
Action brought on 1 April 1998 by Aruba against the                on import licensing procedures, infringement of
         Commission of the European Communities                    Article 228(7) of the Treaty and breach of the principle of
                       (Case T-54/98)                              proportionality.
                        (98/C 166/46)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                   Action brought on 3 April 1998 by VTech Electronics
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        (UK) plc against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1998                                         Communities
by Aruba, represented by P. Bos and M. Slotboom, of the
                                                                                (Case T-56/98)
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                (98/C 166/47)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                   An action against the Commission of the European
     17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,          Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1998
     1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT                       by VTech Electronics (UK) plc, represented by David
     originating products (OJ L 349 of 19.12.1997, p. 26);         Milne and Rupert Baldry, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Wilson Associates, 9, Avenue
                                                                   Guillaume.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant seeks annulment of the sugar                         Ð declare void the Commission decision of 26Ð27
implementation regulation, which lays down the detailed                 January 1998 to issue a regulation which purports to
implementing rules for imports of sugar qualifying under                reclassify for customs duty purposes a product
the rules relating to ACP/OCT cumulation of origin in                   imported by VTech from China known as the Smart
accordance with Article 108b of the OCT decision.                       Start Premier' and/or to declare void the ensuing
                                                                        regulation;
The sugar implementation regulation is intended to secure
the limitation by the Community of imports of sugar                Ð take such further action as the Court may deem
originating, in particular, in Aruba. The Commission has                appropriate; and
restricted trade between Aruba and the Community,
contrary to Community law. Those restrictions must be              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
lifted for the remaining duration of the OCT decision. The
application also includes a claim that the legal
infringements complained of should not be repeated in the          Pleas in law and main arguments:
future. Lastly, the contested regulation imposes serious
restrictions on, and thus severely affects, an important
infant industry' in Aruba, namely the sugar refining              The applicant is a company incorporated in the United
sector.                                                            Kingdom and belongs to the worldwide VTech Group of
                                                                   Companies. VTech's principal activity is the sale of
                                                                   electronic products, in particular learning pads, electronic
The pleas in law advanced in opposition to the contested           keyboard units programmed with a number of activities
regulation allege lack of competence, infringement of              for children. The object of its application is a Commission


C 55/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                       8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-97/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/58)                                                         (2003/C 55/61)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/02 (Reference for a preliminary         from the register of Case C-97/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite Franchi SpA v            ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Rezzola Scavi Srl v
Ministero delle Finanze.                                               Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-95/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-98/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/59)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/62)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                       By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-95/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       from the register of Case C-98/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Ugine Srl v Ministero delle
                                                                       ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Villa Gemma SpA v
Finanze.
                                                                       Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-96/02 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-106/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/60)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/63)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-96/02 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): TOMAR Srl v Ministero             from the register of Case C-106/02: Commission of the
delle Finanze.                                                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case C-2/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd
   (Case C-2/07)
   (2007/C 69/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others

      Defendants: Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd
   Questions referred

               ‘1.

               Does an agreement between public authorities and a private undertaking, signed with a view to having that undertaking become operational at an airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length, featuring an exact description of work on the infrastructure to be carried out in relation to the adaptation of the runway, without its being extended, and the construction of a control tower with a view to permitting large aircraft to fly 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, and which provides for both nighttime and daytime flights with effect from the date at which the undertaking became operational at that airport constitute a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)?

               2.

               Does the work to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport with a view to adapting it to a projected increase in the number of nighttime and daytime flights, without extension of the runway, correspond to the notion of a “project”, for which an impact assessment is required within the terms of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997?

               3.

               Since a projected increase in the activity of an airport is not directly referred to in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC, must the Member State in question nevertheless take account of that increase when examining the potential environmental effect of modifications made to the infrastructures of that airport with a view to adapting it for that increase in activity?’

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ L 73, p. 5.


title: Case C-148/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eV v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — National legislation — Prescription-only medicinal products for human use — Sale by pharmacies — Setting of fixed prices — Quantitative restriction on imports — Measure having equivalent effect — Justification — Protection of the health and life of humans)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eV v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
   (Case C-148/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - National legislation - Prescription-only medicinal products for human use - Sale by pharmacies - Setting of fixed prices - Quantitative restriction on imports - Measure having equivalent effect - Justification - Protection of the health and life of humans))
   (2016/C 475/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eV

      Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a system of fixed prices for the sale by pharmacies of prescription-only medicinal products for human use, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, within the meaning of that article, since that legislation has a greater impact on the sale of prescription-only medicinal products by pharmacies established in other Member States than on the sale of the same medicinal products by pharmacies established within the national territory.

               2.

               Article 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a system of fixed prices for the sale by pharmacies of prescription-only medicinal products for human use, cannot be justified on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans, within the meaning of that article, inasmuch as that legislation is not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Case C-485/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
   (Case C-485/12)
   2013/C 26/44
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

      Question referred

   Must Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a physical inspection in the field will always need to take place before it can be decided on the basis of aerial photographs taken in connection with the assessment of a declaration that the declaration submitted by a farmer is inaccurate?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


title: Case T-508/14: Action brought on 6 July 2014  — Gas Natural v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/55

         Action brought on 6 July 2014 — Gas Natural v Commission
   (Case T-508/14)
   2014/C 292/67
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gas Natural SDG, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F. Seijo Pérez, R. García Gómez de Zamora and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests Commission Decision of 17 July 2013 on the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (State Aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006))
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission, Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission and Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, in that the Commission failed to prove the selective nature of the alleged aid and its effect on trade between Member States; breach of Article 107(1) TFEU and the duty to state reasons, in that the Commission identified the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the alleged aid; infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and of the principle that powers must not be misused, in that the contested decision makes a determination as to the validity of clauses in private contracts; and breach of the principle of legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of equal treatment; and infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.


title: Case C-412/07: Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-412/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/59)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-75/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 February 2008 — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 February 2008 — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
   (Case C-75/08)
   (2008/C 107/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christopher Mellor

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
   Questions referred

               1.

               Whether under Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35/EC (3) (‘the Directive’) Member States must make available to the public reasons for a determination that in respect of an Annex II project there is no requirement to subject the project to assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative whether that requirement was satisfied by the content of the letter dated 4 December 2006 from the Secretary of State?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, what is the extent of the requirement to give reasons in this context?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  OJ L 73, p. 5.

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L 156, p. 17).


title: Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter against the Council of the European Union (Case T-167/95)

text:
No C 333/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 12 . 95
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those                   First Instance on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE, a company
advanced by the applicant in Case T-66/95 Kuchlenz                  governed by Greek law, having its registered office in Agios
Winter v. Commission .                                               Konstantinos, Fthiotida ( Greece ), represented by
                                                                     Konstantinos Adamadopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig
Kuchlenz-Winter against the Council of the European                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               Union
                       ( Case T-167/95 )
                          ( 95/C 333/30 )
                                                                     1 . order the Commission to pay it compensation of
                                                                           Dr 288 304 629 plus default interest at the rate of 29 %
                                                                           from 5 December 1994 for actual losses and lost profits
               (Language of the case: German)                              suffered in the olive oil marketing year 1994/95 caused
                                                                           by the unlawful conduct of the Commission;
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig                            2 . order the Commission to pay it compensation of
Kuchlenz-Winter, residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ),                        Dr 82 500 000 for the damage suffered by the applicant
represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel                   by reason of the harm to its commercial reputation
( Federal Republic of Germany ), with an address for service               caused by the unlawful conduct of the Commision;
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
Roger Barthel, Bereldange .
                                                                     3 . order the Commission to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Council has unlawfully failed to act in
    relation to the applicant, inasmuch as, following the            Pleas in law and main arguments:
    pension rights adjustment effected in the applicant's
    favour pursuant to paragraph 1587 et seq. of the
    Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the              The applicant is a company which mass-produces and
    applicant should not have been excluded from the                 markets agricultural products . It took part in the tendering
    sickness insurance scheme; the defendant omitted to              procedure announced by the Commission of the European
    prevent that from happening, in that it unlawfully failed,       Communities for the despatch of 3 000 tonnes of olive oil to
    within the framework of its powers in relation to the            the people of Georgia and Armenia on the basis of
    scheme , to propose to the competent EC institutions the         Commission Regulations ( EEC ) Nos 2494/94 and 2693/94
    corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of             and succeeded in being awarded the supply of 1 500 tonnes
    Officials,                                                       of olive oil . The applicant maintains that because of the
                                                                     two-month delay in taking over the goods on the part of the
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             transporter, the choice of which was the sole responsibility
                                                                     of the Commission under Regulation ( EC ) No 2693/94, it
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     suffered significant losses and lost profits . In particular the
                                                                     applicant claims, on the basis of Articles 178 and the second
The pleas and main arguments advanced by the applicant               paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty: ( a ) compensation for
are   the   same   as    those    invoked  in   Case   T-66/95       the actual losses suffered, that is to say the warehousing and
Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission and in Case T-l 64/95                  supervision charges paid during the period of the delay; ( b )
Kuchlenz-Winter v. Parliament.                                       lost profits, in view of the fact that the security lodged in the
                                                                     context of the tendering procedure with the Commission
                                                                     could not be released, with the result that the applicant
                                                                     could not obtain financing to carry out commercial
                                                                     transactions on the market and resell quantities of olive oil
                                                                     at a period that is extremely crucial for the olive oil market;
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE against the            ( c ) default interest on the amount of the actual losses and
        Commission of the European Communities                       lost profits at the interest rate prevailing in Greece ( 29 % );
                       ( Case T-180/95                               and ( d ) lost profits on the ground of the harm to its
                                                                     commercial reputation and consequent loss of customers in
                          ( 95/C 333/31 )                            the commercial year 1995/96 .
                (Language of the case: Greek)
An action for damages against the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of


title: Case C-75/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/28/EC — Veterinary medicinal products — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/22

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-75/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/28/EC - Veterinary medicinal products - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 315/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 58)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-506/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy v Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Method of allocating free allowances — Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annex II — Validity — Application of uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to facilities in sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage — Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 10(9) — Annex I — Validity)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy v Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö
   (Case C-506/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Method of allocating free allowances - Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annex II - Validity - Application of uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to facilities in sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 10(9) - Annex I - Validity))
   (2017/C 006/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy

      Defendant: Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Examination of the third and fourth questions has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

               2.

               Examination of the sixth and seventh questions has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Annex I to Decision 2011/278.

               3.

               Examination of the fifth question referred has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 10(9) of Decision 2011/278.

               4.

               Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.

               5.

               The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311), so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-266/08: Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/35

         Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-266/08)
   (2008/C 209/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2004/81/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time limit for transposition of Directive 2004/81/EC expired on 5 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-197/93

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/37
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and                         Removal from the register of Case T-l 97/93 (*)
                                others (M                                                           ( 95 /C 208/ 80 )
                           ( 95/C 208/77 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,            Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                        register of Case T-l 97/93 : Friedrich Bethke v. Council of the
register of Joined Cases T-107/93 : Christian Hansen,                    European Union and Commission of the European
T-109/93 : Liesa Thomsen, T-136/93 : Herbert Sonnenberg,                 Communities .
T-153/93 : F. Steensen-Feddersen, T-178/93 : H.-P . Fock,
T-180/93 : E. Ebsen, T-182/93 : R.-D . Tetens, T-192/93 : M.             (') OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Hansen, T-193/93 : H. Ketelsen, T-194/93 : Ch . Jessen,
T-212/93 : H. Thomsen, T-219/93 : H. Johannsen,
T-226/93 : J. Nielsen, T-227/93 : T. Petersen, T-228/93 : J. H.
Sell, T-229/93 : K. Friedrichsen, T-230/93 : K. Ingwersen,
T-232/93 : J. Johannsen, T-236/93 : P. Carstensen,
T-239/93 : P. A. Petersen and T-240/93 : U. Dethlefsen v.                Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93 ,
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                 T-199/93 , T-200/93 and T-204/93 (')
European Communities .
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/81 )
(M OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 ; OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 ; OJ No C 109 ,
     29 . 4 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Joined Cases T-198/93 , T-199/93 , T-200/93 and
       Removal from the register of Case T-122/93 ( )                    T-204/93 : Detlef Maack and Others v. Commission of the
                            ( 95/C 208/78 )                              European Communities .
                  (Language of the case: German)                         m OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-122/93 : Franz-Joseph Kliemann v.
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                             Removal from the register of Case T-17/94 (')
European Communities .                                                                               ( 95/C 208/ 82 )
 (') OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 22 June 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and                  T-17/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                              T-145/93 (')                                Communities .
                             ( 95 /C 208/79 )
                                                                          (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                  (Language of the case: German)
 By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 European Communities ordered the removal from the                             Removal from the register of Case T-228/94 (')
 register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and T-145/93 : Ernst Theis
 and Karl Leonhauser v. Council of the European Union and                                             ( 95/C 208/83 )
 Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ No C 50 , 26 . 2 . 1991 and OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                          By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-250/12: Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Uralita v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/26

         Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Uralita v Commission
   (Case T-250/12)
   2012/C 243/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer and G. Forwood, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) of the Decision of the European Commission C(2012) 1965 of 27 March 2012 amending Decision C(2008)2626 of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — SODIUM CHLORATE), in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 231 000 on the applicant;

               —

               Article 2 of the Commission’s decision C(2012) 1965 of 27 March 2012 — Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision to impose a fine after the expiry of the limitation period contained in Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), and to retain the interest accrued on this sum, was unlawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that it was unlawful for the Commission to withhold the amount of the fine imposed by Decision C(2012) 1965 of 27 March 2012, including interest, before the fine became due.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-32/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/59/EC — Term "Employer" — National law which excludes non-profit-making activities from the scope of the directive — Incomplete transposition)

text:
C 289/6                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, indent (a), to Council Directive 85/              its external trade and give rise to an advantage for national trade at
73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary                       the expense of that of another Member State, provided that those
inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/                 rules cannot be justified under Article 30 EC. It is for the national
425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended and consoli-                    court to ascertain whether that is so in the main proceedings.
dated by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be
interpreted as meaning that the standard additional amount laid
down by that provision to cover the cost of the controls and inspections       (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
connected with cutting operations is payable for all meat entering the
cutting plant, irrespective of whether it is actually cut in that cutting
plant.
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               in Case C-32/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                         of 2 October 2001                                     98/59/EC — Term ‘Employer’ — National law which
                                                                               excludes non-profit-making activities from the scope of the
in Case C-12/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling form                                      directive — Incomplete transposition)
the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht): criminal pro-
                 ceedings against Marco Grilli (1)                                                        (2003/C 289/11)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
effect — Transfer by road to one Member State of a motor
vehicle purchased in another Member State — Temporary
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
number plates — Criminal penalty for driving a vehicle
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    without a valid registration)
                           (2003/C 289/10)
                                                                               In Case C-32/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I. M. Braguglia,
                    (Language of the case: German)                             assisted by M. Mari): Application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                               adopting the necessary provisions in respect of employers
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         engaged in non-profit-making activities, the Italian Republic
                    in the European Court Reports)                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 98/
                                                                               59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of
                                                                               the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ
                                                                               1998 L 225, p. 16), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
In Case C-12/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                   of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and
by the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht (Germany) for a                      N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before                  R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003,
that court against Marco Grilli on the interpretation of                       in which it has ruled:
Article 29 EC, the Court (First Chamber), composed of
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas, P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                 1.     Declares that, by not adopting the necessary provisions in
gave a judgment on 2 October 2003, the operative part of                              respect of employers engaged in non-profit-making activities,
which is as follows:                                                                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approxi-
                                                                                mation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective
Article 29 EC precludes the rules of a Member State which prohibit                    redundancies;
a national of another Member State, on pain of criminal penalties
such as imprisonment or a fine, from taking to that other State a              2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
vehicle purchased in the first Member State bearing temporary
number plates issued, for the purpose of the export of the vehicle to
that other Member State, by the competent authorities of the latter            (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
State, if those rules are of such a kind as to restrict export patterns,
create a difference in treatment between a State’s domestic trade and


title: Case T-720/16: Action brought on 10 October 2016 — ARFEA v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/32

      Action brought on 10 October 2016 — ARFEA v Commission
      (Case T-720/16)
      (2016/C 441/39)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Aziende riunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) (Alessandria, Italy) (represented by: M. Chiti and V. Angiolini, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Commission Decision of 10 June 2016 on State aid SA.38132 (2015/c) (ex 2014/NN) — Additional PSO compensation for ARFEA, and, in so far as necessary, any other related and/or prior acts challenged in these proceedings.

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The contested decision declares incompatible with the internal market and orders the recovery of the aid alleged to have been granted by the Italian authorities to the applicant, a private company which supplies local public transport services based on concessions and private transport services as a business activity, as compensation for performance of a public service obligation.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 108(3) TFEU.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the measure contested by the Commission does not constitute State aid. In any event, it is not ‘new’ aid, to which the provision cited refers.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107 TFEU.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the contested measure constitutes compensation for public service obligations imposed on ARFEA in accordance with final judgments of Italian courts, and not ‘State aid’ within the meaning of the TFEU provision cited.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of principles concerning the application of EU law, of general principles of non-retroactivity of legal rules and of legal certainty, and of principles established in the field concerned by the Court of Justice.

                              —

                              In that regard, the applicant disputes the application of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the present case, as provided for in the contested decision. The present case, which relates to events which took place in 1997-98, falls under other EU legislation (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/1969).

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of principles concerning the limitation of rights.

                              —

                              The applicant company submits in that regard that it is challenging the recovery decision in respect of the measure in question 18 years after the facts underlying the case.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles established by the case-law of the Court of Justice defining State aid, and principles concerning the procedural autonomy of the Member States.

                              —

                              The applicant company claims in that regard that it intended to demonstrate, in the matter at issue, that the principles established by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00, Altmark Trans and Regierumspräsidium Magdeburg were observed. Furthermore, the company submits that the contested decision has encroached upon an area subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of the rules governing State aid in so far as concerns unilaterally imposed public service obligations.

                              —

                              The applicant company claims that the Commission did not take into account the fact that, in the present case, the Piedmont Region imposed a public service obligation upon it, to be compensated using measures not covered by the concept of State aid.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of principles governing the temporal succession of legal rules.

                              —

                              The applicant company disputes, from a different angle to that put forward in its plea in point 3, that Regulation No 1370/2007 applies to the present case. The company submits that, in the present case, the Commission did not take into account that the Piedmont Region imposed a public service obligation on it, to be compensated by measures not covered by the concept of State aid.


title: Case C-114/17 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2017 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-808/14, Spain v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/11

         Appeal brought on 3 March 2017 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-808/14, Spain v Commission
   (Case C-114/17 P)
   (2017/C 129/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 in Case T-808/14, Kingdom of Spain v Commission;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 (C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009) granted by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Error of law in relation to the interpretation of Article 1 of the contested decision, before its amendment, and in relation to the principles of sound administration and legal certainty, in that the General Court considered that that article also referred to the provision of equipment and that it did not entail any new obligation for the Kingdom of Spain.

               2.

               Error of law in relation to the review of the Member States’ definition and application of a Service of General Economic Interest, with regard to both the first and the fourth criteria established in Altmark Trans and Regirungspräsidum Magdebrug (C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415).

               3.

               Error of law in relation to the judicial review of the compatibility of the aid, in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the General Court concluded that the measure in question was incompatible with the internal market because of the failure to observe the principle of technological neutrality.


title: Case C-425/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 5 August 1999 in the case of Akhtar Seyed Abbasy against Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank

text:
C 34/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                  nationals of a non-member country if such persons have
under Articles 6(2), 8(2)(a), 13 and 17 of Directive 75/439/EEC               no right of free movement under the Treaty of 25 March
as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC and under the                      1957 establishing the European Community, as amended
first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph of                      by the Treaty of 7 February 1992 on European Union?
Article 249 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
(b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              If a person living with a employed person, who is a
                                                                              recognised refugee, in a cohabitation relationship similar
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               to marriage and who looks after and raises the couple’s
                                                                              child also to be regarded as a member of the family
                                                                              within the meaning of Article 1(f)(i) of Regulation (EEC)
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                              No 1408/71?
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                         3. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and
                                                                              Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply in the case
forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. That period,
                                                                              where a refugee has travelled directly to a Member State
which is laid down in Article 2 of Directive 87/101/EEC,
                                                                              from a non-member country and has not moved within
expired on 1 January 1990 without Portugal having so far
                                                                              the Community?
brought into force the abovementioned provisions.
                                                                         4. If the answers to Questions 1 and 3 are in the affirmative,
(1) Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and                but Question 2 falls to be answered in the negative:
    dangerous waste (OJ 1978 L 84, p. 43).
(2) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975            Do provisions of Community law preclude national rules
    L 194, p. 39).                                                            under which, even in the event of recognition as a refugee,
(3) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending                    entitlement to family benefits cannot exist retroactively
    Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).                      but arises only once a residence permit has been issued?
(4) Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazard-
    ous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20).
(5) Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal         (1) JO L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2 ; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
    of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23).                                    p. 416.
(6) Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 amending
    Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1987 L
    42, p. 43).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
                                                                         gericht by order of that Court of 5 August 1999 in the
                                                                         case of Akhtar Seyed Abbasy against Landeskreditbank
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                                 Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank
gericht by order of 5 August 1999 in the case of Vetharani-
gam Pathminidevi v Landeskreditbank Baden-Württem-
                                                                                (Case C-425/99)
                         berg-Förderbank
                                                                                (2000/C 34/19)
                         (Case C-407/99)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2000/C 34/18)
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundessocialgericht
                                                                         (Federal Social Court) of 5 August 1999, received at the Court
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   registry on 3 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
European Communities by order of 5 August 1999 from the                  the case of Akhtar Seyed Abbasy against Landeskreditbank
Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was received           Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank, on the following question:
at the Court Registry on 25 October 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Vetharanigam Pathminidevi v Landeskre-             1. Is Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the Council of
ditbank Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank on the following                         14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
questions:                                                                    to employed persons and their families moving within the
                                                                              Community applicable to refugees and members of their
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June                    family who are nationals of a third country if they do not
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to                    enjoy the right of freedom of movement under the Treaty
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-                   establishing the European Communities of 25 March
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply                 1957, as amended by the Treaty on European Union of
     to refugees and to members of their families who are                     7 February 1992?
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 34/11
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:                  3. Is the priority of an infringement action brought by the
                                                                            claimant in his own name but on behalf of the patent
     Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply if a refugee               owner preserved if the patent at issue is transferred to the
     in employment and members of his family travelled from                 claimant in the course of the proceedings and he is
     a third country to a Member State direct, without moving               thenceforth no longer asserting the rights of another but
     within the Community?                                                  his own rights as owner of the patent?
3. Does Community law preclude a national rule which                    4. Does the priority of an action for a negative declaration
     makes entitlement to family benefits conditional on the                brought against the owner of the patent, intended to clarify
     actual grant of a right of residence, even if the refugee has          whether a certain product infringes his patent, continue to
     been granted the right to asylum?                                      apply if the patent at issue is transferred during the
                                                                            proceedings and the action for a negative declaration is
                                                                            thereupon directed against the new owner of the patent?
(1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                 Action brought on 5 November 1999 by the Commission
gericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 30 September               of the European Communities against the Portuguese
1999 in the case of Connaught Laboratories Inc. v                                                   Republic
(1) SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and (2) SmithK-
         line Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.
                                                                                (Case C-429/99)
                         (Case C-426/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/21)
                          (2000/C 34/20)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice on 5 November 1999 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        of the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                        Vieira and Barry Doherty, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
(Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 30 September 1999,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
which was received at the Court Registry on 3 November
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Connaught
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Laboratories Inc. v (1) SmithKIine Beecham Pharma GmbH
and (2) SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.
on the following questions on the interpretation of the
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
first paragraph of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by                — Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
the Accession Conventions of 9 October 1978 (OJ 1978                        obligations under the second indent of Article 2(4) of
L 304, p. 1), 25 October 1982 (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and                     Directive 90/388/EEC (1) as amended by Directive
26 May 1989 (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1):                                          96/19/EC (2);
1. Does a cause of action pursued in an alternative claim               — Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     already become pending (‘anhängig’) with the event which
     under national procedural law in principle makes it a lis
     pendens (in this case, service of the summons), or does it
     become a lis pendens for the purposes of Article 21 of the         Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
     Brussels Convention only at the time when (additionally)
     the procedural condition subject to which the alternative
     claim is put forward is fulfilled?                                 The Commission considers that ‘call-back’ services are not
                                                                        voice telephony services within the meaning of Commission
2. Who is to be regarded as the ‘party’ where the claimant,             Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the
     on the basis of an authority to bring proceedings given by         markets for telecommunications services and that therefore
     the substantive owner of the right, asserts the latter’s rights    Article 3 of Commission Decision 97/310/EC does not grant
     (the rights of another) in his own name (‘Prozessstand-            any additional implementation period regarding the supply of
     schaft’) — the nominal claimant bringing the action or the         such services, which should already have been liberalised in
     substantive owner of the rights?                                   Portugal upon the entry into force of that directive. Portugal


11.4.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/21
the Basic Regulation, in particular with respect to the            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
potential impact of definitive anti-dumping measures on            removal from the register of Case T-78/94: Hermann
importers/retailers and consumers. The procedure within            Cordes v. Council of the European Union and
the meaning of Article 21 requires an active analysis of           Commission of the European Communities.
the Community interest issues, at least to the extent that
these are raised by interested parties. Once legitimate            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
points are raised in this context, the Commission is bound
either to agree and make recommendations accordingly to
the Council for its definitive measures, or to provide a
reasonable explanation of its decision to the contrary.
Neither of these steps was taken in this case, contrary to
the legitimate expectations of the applicants.                           Removal from the register of Case T-192/95 (1)
Finally, the applicants submit that the Council's decision                                 (98/C 113/52)
to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on top of the
existing quantitative restrictions on imports of the product                      (Language of the case: English)
concerned from two (India and Pakistan) of the three
exporting countries is contrary to the principle of                By order of 5 February 1998 the President of the Third
proportionality.                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case T-192/95: Hitachi Ltd,
                                                                   Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
                                                                   Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.
                                                                   Ltd, Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd, Sharp Corporation and
      Removal from the register of Case T-191/93 (1)               Toshiba Corporation v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/49)                              Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case T-191/93: Albrecht Graf
Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt v. Council of the European Union.                   Removal from the register of Case T-215/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 113/53)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 2 February 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                         T-224/93 (1)                              removal from the register of Case T-215/95: Telecom Italia
                        (98/C 113/50)                              SpA v. Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and
T-224/93: Hans-Erdmann von Flotow and Gunda                              Removal from the register of Case T-197/96 (1)
Bergmann v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                                (98/C 113/54)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       Removal from the register of Case T-78/94 (1)               Case T-197/96: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano
                                                                   Reggiano and Latteria Sociale Spadarotta soc. coop. arl v.
                        (98/C 113/51)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2000 in Case C-1/98 P: British Steel plc v Commission of the European Communities and Others (Appeal — ECSC — Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC (Fifth Aid Code) — Individual Commission decisions authorising State aid for steel undertakings — Competence of the Commission — Legitimate expectations)

text:
10.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 79/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established in Rome, Italy, — the
                                                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), and F. Macken,
                                                                             Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
                      of 23 November 2000                                    trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
                                                                             2000, in which it:
in Case C-441/97 P: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and                         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Others v Commission of the European Communities and
                             Others (1)                                      2.    Orders Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preus-
                                                                                sag Stahl AG and Hoogovens Staal BV to pay the costs;
(Appeal — ECSC — Commission Decision No 3855/
91/ECSC (Fifth Aid Code) — State aid for steel undertakings                  3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Council of the European
in the Italian public sector — Misuse of powers — Principle                        Union to bear their own costs.
        of non-discrimination — Principle of necessity)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                          (2001/C 79/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-441/98 P: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, established                                        (Sixth Chamber)
in Düsseldorf (Germany), Thyssen Stahl AG, established in
Duisburg (Germany), Preussag Stahl AG, established in Salzgitt-                                   of 23 November 2000
er (Germany), and Hoogovens Staal BV, formerly Hoogovens
Groep BV, established in IJmuiden (Netherlands), represented                 in Case C-1/98 P: British Steel plc v Commission of the
by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and, in the case of                                European Communities and Others (1)
Hoogovens Staal BV, by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        (Appeal — ECSC — Commission Decision No 3855/
Chambers of A. May, of the Luxembourg Bar, 398 Route                         91/ECSC (Fifth Aid Code) — Individual Commission
d’Esch — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                   decisions authorising State aid for steel undertakings —
Instance of 24 October 1997 in Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsver-                  Competence of the Commission — Legitimate expectations)
einigung Stahl and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II-1963,
in which the Court of First Instance dismissed their action for                                        (2001/C 79/02)
the annulment of Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of
12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the
public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ 1994 L 112, p. 64), the                                    (Language of the case: English)
other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: P.F. Nemitz) Italian Republic                   In Case CA/98 P: British Steel plc (now Corus UK Ltd),
(Agent: Professor U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri), Council of             established in London, United Kingdom, represented by
the European Union, (Agents: S. Marquardt and A.P. Feeney)                   R. Plender QC, instructed by W. Sibree, Solicitor, with an
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/2                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.3.2001
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,             pending before that court between Ursula Elsen and Bundesver-
Hoss et Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich — appeal against the judgment              sicherungsanstalt für Angestellte — on the interpretation of
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 42
(First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 October 1997                   EC) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
in Case T-243/94 British Steel v Commission [1997] ECR II-                 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
1887, seeking to have that judgment set aside in so far as                 employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
it dismissed its application against Commission Decision                   of their families moving within the Community, as amended
94/258/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
by Spain to the public integrated steel company Corporación               2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended at the material
de la Siderurgia Integral (CSI) and Commission Decision                    time, in particular by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91
94/259/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  of 25 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 206, p. 2) — the Court (Fifth
by Italy to the public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ 1994 L 112,           Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
pp. 58 and 64 respectively), the other parties to the proceedings          Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and D.A.O. Edward,
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
N. Khan and P.F. Nemitz), Det Danske Stålvalseværk A/S,                    given a judgment on 23 November 2000, in which it has
established in Frederiksværk, Denmark, represented by                      ruled:
J.A. Lawrence and A. Renshaw, Solicitors, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-                     Articles 8a, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Italian Republic (Agents: Professor                  Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC) require that, for the purpose of
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferriv), Kingdom of Spain (Agent:              the grant of an old-age pension, the competent institution of a
N. Dı́az Abad), Council of the European Union (Agents:                     Member State take into account, as though they had been completed
J. Carbery and A.P. Feeney), Svenskt Stål AB (SSAB), established           in national territory, periods devoted to child-rearing completed in
in Stockholm, Sweden, and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established             another Member State by a person who, at the time when the child
in Rome, Italy — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                       was born, was a frontier worker employed in the territory of the first
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet                 Member State and residing in the territory of the second Member
(Rapporteur), and M. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate                 State.
General; R. Grass, the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 November 2000, in which it:
                                                                           (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders British Steel plc, now Corus UK Ltd, to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Council
      of the European Union and Det Danske Stålvalseværk A/S to
      bear their own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 November 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                 in Case C-319/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                       of 23 November 2000
in Case C-135/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
the Bundessozialgericht): Ursula Elsen v Bundesver-                                        to transpose Directive 95/47/EC)
              sicherungsanstalt für Angestellte (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/04)
(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Articles 3 and 10 and Annex VI, Section C,
point 19 — Old-age insurance — Validation of periods of                                        (Language of the case: French)
      child-rearing completed in another Member State)
                            (2001/C 79/03)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In Case C-319/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Bellanger and A. Maitrepierre) — application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by not communicating within the prescribed period the
In Case C-135/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-                comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament
richt (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards