title: Case F-77/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v Council

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/40

         Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-77/11)
   2011/C 340/83
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision, adopted in implementation of the judgment in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise, as well as the application for damages which the applicant allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 1 October 2010, adopted by the Director General of DG A Personnel and Administration of the Council of the European Union in implementation of the judgment of 5 May 2010 in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the Council to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the Council to pay damages, with default and compensatory interest at 6,75 % for the material and non-material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Société Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs Réunis de Roquefort(Aveyron) and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-80/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 19
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                 Action brought on 24 February 1997 by the Commission
to cosmetic products (*) preclude a national provision                  of the European Communities against the Federal
which contains prohibitions of statements in connection                                         Republic of Germany
with the marketing of cosmetic products which go beyond                                             ( Case C-83/97)
the restrictions contained in the Directive ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/38 )
(') OJ No L 262 , 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 24 February 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Societe Anonyme                   European Communities, with an address for service in
des Caves et des Producteurs Reunis de Roquefort                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
(Aveyron) and Others against the Commission of the                      the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                   European Communities                                 Communities, Wagner Centre, C 254, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-80/97 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 97/C 108/36 )
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
An action against the Commission of the European                               prescribed all the measures necessary in order to
Communities which had previously been brought before                           comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
the Court of First Instance was brought before the Court                        1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February                          wild fauna and flora ('), the Federal Republic of
 1997 by Societe Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs                           Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Reunis de Roquefort ( Aveyron ) and Others . That action,                       EC Treaty,
T-140/97, was the subject of an order declining
jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance referred it to             — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
 the Court of Justice in order that it might hear and                           costs .
 determine the claim for annulment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a                 Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit for transposition of the
 notice in Official Journal of the European Communities                  Directive expired on 5 June 1994 .
 No C 318 of 26 October 1996 , page 24 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992, p. 7 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .
 Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Bergpracht
 Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and others against the
           Commission of the European Communities                        Action brought on 28 February 1997 by the Commission
                            ( Case C-82/97)                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                              ( 97/C 108/37)
                                                                                ( Case C-88/ 97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/39 )
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
  the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by                         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
  Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG and others. The                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  action in question had previously been brought before the               on 28 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Court of First Instance under Case T-141/96 ; the Court of              Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
  First Instance made an order declining jurisdiction in the              of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
  case and transferred it to the Court of Justice for                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
  determination by the latter Court of the application for                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  annulment .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
   notice published in Official Journal of the European                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC
   Communities No C 336 of 9 November 1996, page 30.                             of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                                habitats and of wild fauna and flora ('), the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations


title: Action brought on 3 October 1997 by the Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-266/97)

text:
6 . 12 . 97           EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 370/9
which the Commission rejected. An action against that                     In support of its application for the annulment of that
decision was brought by the applicant before the Court of                 decision, VTM raised five pleas in law.
First Instance ('). In the present case the applicant seeks
compensation for the damage occasioned to him by the                      1 . Breach of its right of defence .
unlawful failure of the Commission to exercise the powers
of surveillance and control conferred on it by the Treaty in              2 . Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
accordance with the prescribed legal framework to protect                     expectations, the principle of legal certainty and the
his legitimate interests by the adoption of interim                           duty of care :
measures .
                                                                              in Case C-211/91 ( judgment of 16 December 1992 )
(') Case T-235/95 , OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 , p. 19 .                           the Commission did not consider that the exclusive
                                                                              right relating to commercial television constituted an
                                                                              infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty. When the
                                                                              Commission has examined the compatibility with the
                                                                              Treaty of a provision of national law under Article 169
                                                                              of the EC Treaty, it may not subsequently find a part
Action brought on 3 October 1997 by the Vlaamse                               of that provision to be incompatible with the Treaty in
Televisie Maatschappij NV against Commission of the                           the context of proceedings under Article 90 ( 3 ).
                    European Communities
                        ( Case T-266/97)                                  3 . Breach of the obligation to state reasons under
                          ( 97/C 370/20 )                                     Article 190 of the EC Treaty:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                 since this is the first time that the Commission has
                                                                              held an exclusive right to be incompatible with
An action against the Commission of the European                              Article 90 ( 1 ), read in conjunction with Article 52 of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             the EC Treaty, the requirement to state the reasons on
Instance of the European Communities on 3 October 1997                        which that decision was based was even greater, VTM
by Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV ( Flemish                                maintains .
Television Company), represented by F. Herbert and D.
Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 4 . In the alternative, infringement of Article 90 ( 1 ), read
Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Zeyen, of the                                in conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty:
Luxembourg Bar, 56—58 Rue Charles Martel ,
Luxembourg-Merl .                                                             VTM challenges the Commission's view that Flemish
                                                                              cultural policy, which is based on preservation of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  pluralism in the Flemish press, does not justify VTM's
                                                                              exclusive right in respect of commercial television in
1 . annul the Commission Decision of 26 June 1997                             Flanders .
     pursuant to Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty on the
     exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in               5 . Missuse of powers:
     Flanders;
                                                                              this  is the     fifth time     that the Commission has
2 . order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   challenged the Flemish media legislation . According to
                                                                              VTM, the Commission's persistence is the result of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           political pressure at both national and European level .
The action by VTM must be considered in the context of
the statutory provisions adopted by the Vlaamse
Gemeenschap ( Flemish Community ) which, as a
transitional measure pending the liberalization of the
audiovisual market, grant the exclusive right to operate                  Action brought on 6 October 1997 by Broome &
commercial television in Flanders to one private                          Wellington Ltd against the Commission of the European
broadcasting corporation, which may only broadcast                                                     Communities
advertising with the authorization of the Flemish                                                   ( Case T-267/97 )
Government . In 1987 VTM was authorized to broadcast
advertising for a period of 18 years.                                                                 ( 97/C 370/21 )
In 1994 VT4, a company incorporated under English law                                     (Language of the case: English)
but with its origins in Flanders, submitted a complaint to
the Commission concerning VTM 's exclusive right to                       An action against the Commission of the European
operate commercial television in Flanders.                                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 1997
According to Commission Decision 97/606/EC of 26 June                     by Broome & Wellington Ltd, represented by Fiona M.
 1997 ( OJ L 244 , 6 . 9 . 1997, p. 18 ) that exclusive right is           Carlin and James H. Searles, with an address for service in
contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, read in                    Luxembourg at the office of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10
conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty.                             rue Mathias Hardt .


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/52

         Action brought on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel Micha against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-50/04)
   (2004/C 94/141)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel Micha, resident in Roeser (Luxembourg), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 4 April 2003 in which the Commission draws up a definitive staff report for the applicant for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 1, as symbolic compensation for damage suffered as the result of the delay in drawing up his staff report and the detriment to his reasonable career prospects;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case challenges the measure by which the Commission drew up his staff report for the period 1999-2001.
   In support of his claims, he alleges:

               —

               The existence of a manifest error of assessment and of inconsistency between the general and analytical assessments in that the assessor did not taken into account the reference framework specific to the applicant's grade. Specifically, the duties which he performed fall within a grade higher than his actual grade;

               —

               Infringement of the obligation to state reasons;

               —

               Infringement of the obligation to draw up an annual report within a reasonable period, to the detriment of the applicant's reasonable career prospects.


title: Case C-361/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud'Hommes de Beauvais (France) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Olivier Polier v Najar EURL

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud'Hommes de Beauvais (France) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Olivier Polier v Najar EURL
   (Case C-361/07)
   (2007/C 269/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil de Prud'Hommes de Beauvais
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olivier Polier

      Defendant: Najar EURL
   Question referred
   Is Order No 2005-893 (1) of 2 August 2005, which allows dismissal during the consolidation period of two years provided for in the New Recruitment Contract (Contrat Nouvelle Embauche) without giving details as to the legitimacy of the termination and without prior information, valid in the light of:

               (1)

               European law, as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which makes it clear that workers are entitled not to be dismissed without valid reason;

               (2)

               [Convention No] 158 of the International Labour Organisation concerning termination of employment; and

               (3)

               The European Social Charter?

      (1)  Order No 2005-893 of 2 August 2005 concerning the ‘New Recruitment’ Employment Contract, JORF No 179, of 3 August 2005, p. 12689.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 January 1999 in Case C-348/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos): criminal proceedings against Donatella Calfa (Public policy - Tourist from another Member State - Conviction for drug use - Exclusion for life from a Member State's territory)

text:
27.3.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 86/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  justified on grounds of public policy, public security or
                    of 19 January 1999                               public health preclude legislation which, with certain
                                                                     exceptions, in particular where there are family reasons,
in Case C-348/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            requires a Member State's courts to order expulsion for
the Arios Pagos): criminal proceedings against Donatella             life from its territory of nationals of other Member States
                          Calfa (1)                                  found guilty on that territory of the offences of obtaining
                                                                     and being in posession of drugs for their own personal
(Public policy Ð Tourist from another Member State Ð                 use.
Conviction for drug use Ð Exclusion for life from a
                 Member State's territory)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                       (1999/C 86/01)
               (Language of the case: Greek)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 January 1999
In Case C-348/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arios Pagos (Supreme Court of              in Case C-54/95: Federal Republic of Germany v.
Cassation) (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the                          Commission of the European Communities (1)
criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Donatella Calfa Ð on the interpretation of Articles 7, 8(1)          (Clearance of accounts Ð EAGGF Ð Disallowance of
and (2), 8a(1), 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and                                expenditure Ð 1991 financial year)
relevant Community directives relating to freedom of                                         (1999/C 86/02)
movement for persons and freedom to provide services Ð
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann (Presidents of                              (Language of the case: German)
Chambers), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R.
Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 January 1999,                       published in the European Court Reports)
in which it has ruled:
                                                                     In Case C-54/95: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of             Ernst Röder and Gereon Thiele) v. Commission of the
Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on                  European Communities (Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt)
the coordination of special measures concerning the                  Ð application for annulment of Commission Decision
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are                94/871/EC of 21 December 1994 on the clearance of the


title: Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Comune di Sassuolo against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-189/98)

text:
23.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 20/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         grade which he deserves. The material damage results
                                                                    from the non-receipt by him of additional remuneration
                                                                    from 1 April 1998, on which date he should have been
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of                 promoted.
    6 April 1998, by which it declined to promote the
    applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 1998
    promotion procedure;
Ð annul the decision of 9 October 1998 rejecting the
    complaint against the contested decision of 6 April
    1998, which was submitted by the applicant on                   Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Comune di
    27 April 1998 and registered in the Secretariat-General         Sassuolo against Commission of the European
    on 6 May 1998 under number R/436/98;                                                    Communities
                                                                                (Case T-189/98)
Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant                                              (1999/C 20/59)
    compensation for the material and non-material
    damage suffered by him, fixed on an equitable basis in
    the sum of BEF 250 000, subject to increase or                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    decrease during the course of the proceedings;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 4 December 1998 by Comune di Sassuolo,
                                                                    represented by Fabio Dani, of the Ferrara Bar, with an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Alex Schmitt, 71 Rue de AubeÂpines.
The applicant has previously worked     in various capacities
in the European public service (inter   alia as a member of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
the defendant's Legal Service, as a     legal secretary to a
                                                                    should:
judge at the Court of Justice and        as assistant to the
Director-General of DG XXIV).
                                                                    Ð Annul the decision of Directorate General V of the
In support of his application, he pleads:                               Commission of the European Communities (D(98) DG
                                                                        V.A.4 DC/MG/se/980511 of 12 May 1998),
                                                                        communicated to the applicant Ð the Municipal
Ð infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular the              Administration of Sassuolo Ð by the Ministry of
    third and fourth paragraphs of Article 24 and                       Employment and Social Security of the Italian
    Article 45(1) thereof;                                              Republic on 5 October 1998;
Ð disregard of the general principles of law, such as the           Ð Order the defendant to pay the costs.
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on
    grounds which are legally admissible Ð that is to say,
    relevant and not vitiated by any error of law or of fact        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Ð and the principle precluding an outcome which is
    contrary to justice or equity; and
                                                                    The applicant in this case, in Italian municipality, is
Ð breach of the principles of proportionality, equality of          challenging the refusal to extend a pilot project financed
    treatment between officials and the protection of               by the European Social Fund (Ariane Programme) relating
    legitimate expectations.                                        to the testing and development of employment promotion
                                                                    systems.
The applicant maintains that, in adopting the contested
decisions, the appointing authority applied arbitrary and           It must be borne in mind in that respect, first, that,
inequitable criteria which have caused him serious                  according to the project schedule, the final dates for
damage.                                                             determination of the expenses qualifying for a
                                                                    contribution, for final payments to the ultimate
                                                                    beneficiaries and for the evaluation of financing, were
The non-material damage suffered by the applicant results           fixed as, respectively, 31 December 1996, 31 December
from the fact that, despite having been willing to move             1997 and 30 April 1998. The activation of phase 4 of the
jobs in the course of his career with a view to increasing          project, known as Service Management', consisting inter
his experience and knowledge, he has been refused the               alia in the opening of the counter to the public for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/34              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
purpose of matching vacancies with applications for               unforeseeable circumstances. In fact, that delay was
employment, was subject to some delay owing to                    caused by the fact that the works for alteration of the
alterations to the premises at which the service is located.      premises at which the service in question was provided fell
For that reason application was made for the period of            behind schedule.
operation of the service to be extended until 22 June
1998, and the refusal to grant that application constitutes
                                                                  Nor does the applicant share the view that the request for
the subject-matter of this action.
                                                                  an extension should have been lodged by 31 December
                                                                  1996: the extent of the actual delay had not become
According to the applicant, the decision at issue is the          apparent by that date. In other words, for so long as the
result of manifest misuse of powers and is supported by           Municipality was of the opinion that completion of the
no statement of reasons whatsoever. In its view, it is            project within the time-limits originally announced, was
incomprehensible that the municipality's application for          realistic, it continued its activities and decided to apply for
an extension was refused, involving as it did a period of         an extension only when the real extent of the delay
only one month and a half, attributable to wholly                 became apparent.


title: Case T-283/02: Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Gemeinschaftskernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Gemeinschafts-                   infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
kernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH against Commission of the                     tations. Moreover, the defendant caused the breakdown of the
                    European Communities                                contractual negotiations and thus infringed the principle of
                                                                        proper administration. The infringement of those principles
                                                                        caused a loss to the applicant in the amount of the sum
                        (Case T-283/02)                                 claimed.
                        (2002/C 289/55)
                  (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                        Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia
                                                                         Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        (Case T-284/02)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by Gemein-
                                                                                (2002/C 289/56)
schaftskernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH, Neckarwestheim (Ger-
many), represented by S. Zickgraf, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      EUR 332 083,60 together with interest of 5,25 % since             Communities on10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionys-
      12.6.2000 on the sum of EUR 328 782,43 and interest               sopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin,
      of 5,25 % since 21.8.2000 on the sum of EUR 3 301,17;             lawyer.
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council not to promote the
                                                                              applicant to Grade C 2 during the 2001 promotion
                                                                              procedure;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 300 000 to
                                                                              compensate her for all the damage suffered by her;
From September 1994 to July 1998 the applicant supplied
services in the context of the TACIS Programme at the                   —     order the Council to pay the costs.
Ukrainian atomic power station in Saporoshje. The parties had
concluded Direct Agreements in that regard. In order to
perform the contracts the applicant employed various experts
and appointed a project manager.                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges manifest
According to the application, although the applicant was not            error of assessment in that the defendant has failed to take
contractually bound to appoint a project manager after August           into account, even in the alternative, the length of the
1998, the project manager provided ‘on-site-assistance’ at the          applicant’s period of service in her grade. The applicant alleges
Saporoshje nuclear power station from August 1998 to                    moreover that the defendant failed to observe Article 5 of the
December 1999. The experts also continued to work on the                Staff Regulations in that there is a contradiction between the
individual projects in Saporoshje. Already in April 1998 the            applicant’s skills and her being kept at her grade. According to
parties were negotiating on the conclusion of a fourth contract,        the applicant, the defendant has also failed to observe the
which, however, was ultimately not concluded.                           resolutions adopted by the Joint Committee of 16 July 1993
                                                                        inasmuch as the defendant took into account the actual
                                                                        number of days worked by the applicant and the number of
The applicant claims that it has suffered a loss in the amount          days taken as sick leave. Finally, the applicant points out that
of the sum claimed as a result of a non-contractual situation           the Staff Regulations require that officials be respected and, if
and that the defendant is required to compensate that loss in           necessary, helped and also lays a duty on the employer to have
accordance with Article 288(2) EC. By promising that the                regard for officials’ welfare. In the present case, the applicant
applicant would obtain a contract or payment from another               is the victim of harassment with the result that progress in her
source, the defendant created an expectation in the applicant           career has been hindered.
which caused it to work for the defendant without a contract.
By ultimately not fulfilling that expectation, the defendant


title: Case T-240/07: Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/43

         Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission
   (Case T-240/07)
   (2007/C 211/81)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV (represented by: T. Ottervanger and M.A. de Jong, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to, inter alia, the applicants;

               —

               set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging the Commission decision of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market), by which a fine was imposed on the applicants.
   In support of their action, the applicants first put forward a number of procedural heads of complaint. First, they allege infringement of the principle of sound administration during the investigation and breach of Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the Commission refused access to the defence submissions of the other undertakings. Second, the applicants allege that the Commission failed to carry out a careful and impartial investigation. Third, the applicants submit that the conduct of the Competition Commissioner amounted to an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence. Fourth, they claim that the Commission failed to comply with the requirement that proceedings be concluded within a reasonable period of time, as a result of which the applicants argue that their rights of defence were breached.
   The applicants further allege a breach of Article 81 EC. In that connection, the applicants first submit that there was a defective adduction of evidence, disregard for the presumption of innocence and infringement of the principle that reasons must be given. Second, the applicants dispute the contention that there were agreements and/or concerted practices in this case. Third, the applicants argue that the Commission erred in its calculation of the duration of the alleged breach.
   The applicants also put forward a number of heads of complaint concerning the determination of the amount of the fine. They first allege a breach of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, incorrect application of the guidelines on setting fines, infringement of the principles of equality, legal certainty and proportionality and breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicants argue that the Commission erred in its assessment of the gravity of the breach, in particular through misappraisal of the nature of the breach, by failing to take account of the negligible market impact and through its incorrect determination of the relevant geographical market. They further claim that the Commission erred in determining the basic amount of the fine, the multiplication factor for the deterrent effect and the duration. In addition, it is alleged that the Commission failed to take adequate account of the mitigating circumstances and that the unduly lengthy duration of the administrative proceedings resulted in a disproportionately high fine by reason of the fact that Commission policy in regard to the level of fines had become stricter in the intervening period.
   In conclusion, the applicants submit that the reduction applied by the Commission to the amount of the fine by reason of the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings was disproportionately modest.


title: Case C-190/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy — Poland) — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Tax on income of legal persons — Difference of treatment between dividends paid to resident and non-resident investment funds — Exclusion of tax exemption — Restriction not justified)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy — Poland) — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy
   (Case C-190/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Tax on income of legal persons - Difference of treatment between dividends paid to resident and non-resident investment funds - Exclusion of tax exemption - Restriction not justified))
   2014/C 175/05
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland) — Interpretation of Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital — Fiscal legislation exempting from tax on the income of legal persons dividends paid to investment funds established in the territory of Member States, but excluding from entitlement to that exemption investment funds established in non-member countries

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital applies in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, under national tax legislation, the dividends paid by companies established in a Member State to investment funds established in a non-Member State are not the subject of a tax exemption, while investment funds established in that Member State receive such an exemption.

               2)

               Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which dividends paid by companies established in that Member State to an investment fund situated in a non-Member State cannot qualify for a tax exemption, provided that that Member State and the non-Member State concerned are bound by an obligation under a convention on mutual administrative assistance which enables the national tax authorities to verify any information which may be transmitted by the investment fund. It is for the referring court, in the main proceedings, to examine whether the mechanism for the exchange of information provided for within that cooperation framework is in fact capable of enabling the Polish tax authorities to verify, where necessary, the information provided by investment funds established in the United States on the conditions for their formation and the conduct of their business, in order to establish that they operate within a regulatory framework equivalent to that of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14. 7. 2012.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 July 1998 in Case T-286/97: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for failure to act - Obligation to act - None - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/11
(Portugal), represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lisbon Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                                    of 16 July 1998
(Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) Ð
application for the annulment of Commission Decisions             in Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl v. Commission of the
C(96) 2554 and C(96) 2555 of 9 December 1996 reducing                               European Communities (1)
two Community aids granted by the European Social Fund
                                                                  (Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 Ð Common fisheries
Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,
                                                                  policy Ð Community financial assistance Ð Procedure for
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                  cancelling the assistance Ð Action for annulment Ð
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                                (98/C 312/30)
1. dismisses the action;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                  In Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl, represented by Paolo Piva,
                                                                  of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                  Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                  latter's Chambers, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of
                                                                  the European Communities (Agents: Hubert van Vliet and
                                                                  Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of a
                                                                  decision allegedly contained in a letter of 4 August 1997
                                                                  sent by the Commission to the applicant Ð the Court of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
                                                                  President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                       (First Chamber)                            Registrar, made an order on 16 July 1998, the operative
                        of 7 July 1998                            part of which is as follows:
in Case T-178/97 Albano Moncada v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                        1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Officials Ð Deputising for a hierarchical superior Ð
Action manifestly inadmissible and not well founded in            2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                              law)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
                         (98/C 312/29)
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-178/97: Albano Moncada, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                                      of 6 July 1998
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               in Case T-286/97: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against the                            the European Communities (1)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                  (Action for failure to act Ð Obligation to act Ð None Ð
Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                        Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Clotuche) Ð application for, first, annulment of the
Commission's decision of 12 August 1996 directing a                                       (98/C 312/31)
colleague in a lower grade than the applicant to deputise
during the absences of his hierarchical superior and,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
second, for damages Ð the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and R. M. Moura
Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            In Case T-286/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
made an order on 7 July 1998 in which it:                         represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                  Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                  Richard Lyal) Ð application for a finding that the
                                                                  Commission failed to act by failing to take a decision on a
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    complaint (IV/34.824 Ð Goldstein/GMC) against certain
                                                                  anti-competitive practices, lodged by the applicant under
                                                                  Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                                                                  1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
                                                                  the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87)
                                                                  Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges;        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 July 1998, the                et Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill v. Commission of
operative part of which is as follows:                               the European Communities (Agents: Kirsi Leivo and
                                                                     Richard Lyal) Ð application for annulment of Articles 2
1. The application is dismissed.                                     and 4 of Commission Decision C(97) 3036 of 6 October
                                                                     1997 relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 11(5) of
2. The applicant shall pay the costs.                                Council Regulation No 17 (IV/35.860 Ð Steel tubes), Ð
                                                                     the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                     of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
                                                                     Judges, has given an order of 24 June 1998, in which:
                                                                     1. The application         is    dismissed  as    manifestly
                                                                         inadmissible.
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                       of 15 July 1998
                                                                     (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
in Case T-286/97 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                  the European Communities
                    (No need to adjudicate)
                        (98/C 312/32)
               (Language of the case: English)                                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-286/97 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in                                           of 7 July 1998
London, represented by Raymond St John Murphy,
solicitor, 3 Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London,                 in Case T-65/98 R, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v.
against Commission of the European Communities Ð                              Commission of the European Communities
application for interim measures in connection with a                (Competition Ð Interlocutory proceedings Ð Intervention
complaint (IV/34.824 Ð Goldstein/GMC) against certain                       Ð Confidentiality Ð Suspension of execution)
anti-competitive practices, lodged by the applicant under
Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February                                       (98/C 312/34)
1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð the President of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 15 July 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             In Case T-65/98 R, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly
                                                                     HB Ice Cream Ltd, established in Dublin, represented by
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for             Malcolm Nicholson and Michael Rowe, solicitors, with an
     interim measures.                                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, v.
2. The applicant shall bear his own costs.                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Barry
                                                                     Doherty and Wouter Wils) Ð application for suspension
                                                                     of execution of the Commission Decision of 11 March
                                                                     1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/
                                                                     35.436 Ð Van den Bergh Foods Limited) Ð the President
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of the Court of First Instance made an order on 7 July
                                                                     1998 in which he:
                       of 24 June 1998
in Case T-596/97: Dalmine SpA v. Commission of the
                                                                     1. grants leave to Master Foods Ltd and Treats Frozen
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                         Confectionery Ltd to intervene in Case T-65/98 R in
(Action for annulment Ð Competition law Ð Decision                       support of the forms of order sought by the defendant;
requiring the supply of information Ð Periodic penalty
    payments Ð Notification Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                     2. grants the requests for confidential treatment made by
                        (98/C 312/33)                                    Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, with respect to certain
                                                                         information contained in its application for suspension
               (Language of the case: English)                           of execution of the Commission Decision of 11 March
                                                                         1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and
In Case T-596/97: Dalmine SpA, established in Dalmine                    86 of the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395
(Italy), represented by Fabrizio Arossa, of the Milan Bar,               and IV/35.436 Ð Van den Bergh Foods Limited), for
and Rachel Brandenburger, Solicitor, with an address for                 the purposes of the interlocutory proceedings;


title: Case C-444/13: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov — Romania) — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Brașov

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov — Romania) — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Brașov
   (Case C-444/13) (1)

   2014/C 175/44
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9. 11. 2013.


title: Case T-240/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Hungary v Commission (Approximation of the laws — Deliberate release into the environment of GMOs — Marketing authorisation procedure — EFSA Scientific Opinions — Committee procedure — Regulatory procedure — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement — Finding of the Court of its own motion)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-240/10) (1)

   (Approximation of the laws - Deliberate release into the environment of GMOs - Marketing authorisation procedure - EFSA Scientific Opinions - Committee procedure - Regulatory procedure - Infringement of an essential procedural requirement - Finding of the Court of its own motion)
   2014/C 39/26
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Sipos and L. Pignataro-Nolin, and subsequently by: A. Sipos and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Memez, acting as Agents); Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by: C. Schiltz, and subseqeuntly by: P. Frantzen, and finally by: L. Delvaux and D. Holderer, acting as Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and E. Riedl, acting as Agents); and Republic of Poland (represented initially by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and J. Sawicka, and subsequently by: B. Majczyna and J. Sawicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11), and of Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 15).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch and Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-721/13: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/19

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
   (Case T-721/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 339/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Bolloré (Ergué Gabéric, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2013 (Case R 1961/2912-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its costs, including those incurred by the defendant and the other party to the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case C-266/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Pascual Merino García v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security of migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Persons covered - 'Employed persons' - Family benefits)

text:
No C 228/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
O OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 12 June 1997
                                                                        in Case C-266/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Bundessozialgericht): Pascual Merino Garcia v. Bun
                                                                                desanstalt fur Arbeit ( l )
                                                                        (Social security of migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1408/71 — Persons covered — 'Employed persons ' —
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           Family benefits)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/08 )
                           of 5 June 1997
in     Case   C-223/96: Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: German)
              Communities v. French Republic ( l )
    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/156/EEC)
                            ( 97/C 228/07 )                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case C-266/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal
                                                                        Social Court) ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          proceedings pending before that court between Pascual
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Merino Garcia and Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on the
                                                                        interpretation and validity of Point I ( C ) of Annex I to
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                        on the application of social security schemes to employed
In Case C-223/96 : Commission of the European
                                                                        persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Communities ( Agent: M. Kondou Durande, assisted by                     families moving within the Community, as amended and
J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar ) v. French Republic
                                                                        updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
( Agents: C. de Salins, and R. Nadal ) — application for a
                                                                        2 June 1983 ( OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as
declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and             amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council      Directive    91 / 156/EEC    of  18   March     1991
                                                                        30 October 1989 ( OJ No L 331 , 16 . 11 . 1989, p. 1 ) —
                                                                        the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini
amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78 ,                   ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris,
26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 ), or by not communicating those                  G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N.
measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
obligations under that Directive — the Court ( Fifth                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,                     12 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), D. A. O.
Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it:                                   In accordance with Article 73 of Council Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes to employed persons, to self
                                                                        employed persons and to members of their families
1 . declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                moving within the Community, as amended and updated
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ,
      with Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991               as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
      amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the French                30 October 1989, the expression 'employed persons ' must
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               be construed as designating only employed persons who
      Article 2 (1 ) of that Directive;                                 satisfy the definition resulting from the combined
                                                                        provisions of Article 1 (a) (ii) of the Regulation and
                                                                        Point I (C) of Annex I thereto, for the purposes of paying
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                        family benefits under the German legislation.
                                                                        Furthermore, consideration of the questions referred has
                                                                        not disclosed any factor such as to cast doubt on the
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                       validity of the said Annex. However, Article 48 (2) of the
                                                                        EC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                        application of national legislation which results in an
                                                                        employed person whose children are domiciled in another
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 228/5
Member State being refused family benefits in respect of                     to remain in the territory of a Member State after
full calendar months falling within an extended period of                    having been employed in that State and Article 7 of
unpaid leave, where employed persons whose children are                      Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
domiciled in the Member State concerned are entitled to                      concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to
such benefits.                                                               remain in the territory of another Member State after
                                                                             having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
O OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                             capacity;
                                                                       2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                          of 12 June 1997
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in      Case    C-151/96: Commission of the            European
                     Communities v. Ireland (')                                                of 17 June 1997
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                in Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-l 11/95 (references for a
Registration of vessels other than fishing vessels —                   preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
              Nationality requirement for the owner)                   Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                       for the Home Department, ex parte: Mann Singh Shingara
                            ( 97/C 228/09 )                            and The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home
                                                                                Department, ex parte: Abbas Radiom ( 1 )
                   (Language of the case: English)                      (Free movement of persons — Derogations — Right of
                                                                       entry — Legal remedies — Articles 8 and 9 of Directive
                                                                                64/22 1/EEC)
 In Case C-151 /96 : Commission of the European                                                  97/C 228 / 10 )
 Communities ( Agents: Frank Benyon and Xavier Lewis ) v.
 Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) — application for a
 declaration that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations                            (Language of the case: English)
 and administrative provisions which limit the right to
 register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish            In Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-l 11 /95 : references to the
 shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole or in            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High
 part by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish                  Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (United
 citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has failed to             Kigndom ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 comply with Articles 6 , 48 , 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty,              pending before that court between The Queen and
 Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251/70 of               Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the                 Mann Singh Shingara ( C-65/95 ) and between The Queen
 territory of a Member State after having been employed in              and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
 that State ( OJ No L 142 , 30 . 6 . 1970, p. 24 ) and Article 7        Abbas Radiom ( C-l 11/95 ) — on the interpretation of
 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
                                                                        Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of
 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to                 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
 remain in the territory of another Member State after                  concerning the movement and residence of foreign
 having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed                  nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy,
 capacity ( OJ No L 14, 20 . 1 . 1975 , p. 10 ) — the Court             public security or public health ( OJ, English Special
  ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                     Edition 1963—1964, p. 117) — the Court, composed of:
 Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-R
                                                                        G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. L.
 Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges;            Murray and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Presidents of
  C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                Chambers, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
 given a judgment on 12 June 1997, in which it:                         D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and M.
                                                                        Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
                                                                        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
   1 . declares that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations          17 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
        and administrative provisions which limit the right to
        register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish
        shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole            1 . On a proper construction of Article 8 of Council
        or in part by the Government, a Minister of State, an                 Directive 64/221 /EEC of 25 February 1964 on the
        Irish citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has                 coordination of special measures concerning the
        failed to comply with Articles 6, 48, 52 and 58 of the                movement and residence of foreign nationals which
        EC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                   are justified on grounds of public policy, public
        No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers                   security or public health, where under the national


title: Case T-422/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — CPME and Others v Council

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/34

         Action brought on 14 August 2013 — CPME and Others v Council
   (Case T-422/13)
   2013/C 325/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) (Brussels, Belgium); Artenius España, SL (El Prat del Llobregat, Spain); Cepsa Quimica, SA (Madrid, Spain); Equipolymers Srl (Milan, Italy); Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o. (Włocławek, Poland); Lotte Chemical UK Ltd (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom); M&G Polimeri Italia SpA (Patrica, Italy); Novapet, SA (Zaragoza, Spain); Ottana Polimeri Srl (Ottana, Italy); UAB Indorama Polymers Europe (Klaipėda, Lithuania); UAB Neo Group (Rimkai, Lithuania); and UAB Orion Global pet (Klaipėda) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU (1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants damages; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(4) and (5) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) (the ‘Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation’) and violation of the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Council did not disclose to the applicants the facts and considerations that led to the adoption of the contested decision, and allow a reasonable time for comment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and violated Articles 11(2) and 21(1) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation when adopting the contested decision, in particular when concluding in recitals 17 and 23 of the contested decision that material injury is unlikely to recur upon lapse of the measures, and that the continuation of the anti-dumping measures is clearly not in the EU interest.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly and seriously violated its duties of care and of good administration as it did not disclose to the applicants the facts and considerations that led to the adoption of the contested decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, raised in support of the claim for damages, alleging that the Council acted unlawfully by adopting the contested decision and thereby caused damages to the applicants for which the EU is liable under Article 340(2) TFEU.

      (1)  Council Implementing Decision of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013 L 136, p. 12)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case C-147/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social Security

text:
15.6.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/25
importance, there would be no obligation in Italy to apply the        3.    Does the answer to Question 2 turn on whether the
conservation measures laid down in Article 6(2) of the directive            difference in the rules in the Member State of manufacture
to that site during the consultation period and pending a                   and the Member State of importation results from the
Council decision.                                                           fact that different use has been made of the possibility to
                                                                            lay down rules under Article 12(2)(b) of Directive No 70/
                                                                            524/EEC?
(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970, p. 1.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                      (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
                                                                      court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K.
                                                                      Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                                       for Social Security
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit
Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bun-                                        (Case C-147/02)
      desinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
                                                                                (2002/C 144/43)
                        (Case C-145/02)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2002/C 144/42)                               (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 27 March 2002,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2002,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster
                                                                      against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social
                                                                      Security, on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In a situation where:
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 31 January 2002,              a)    the earnings-related element of a woman’s Statutory
received at the Court Registry on 18 April 2002, for a                      Maternity Pay (‘SMP’) is calculated by reference to her
preliminary ruling in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  normal weekly earnings for a eight week period ending
against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter             on 15th week before the expected week of confinement
des Bundesinteresses (Representative of the Federal Interest) at            (‘the relevant period’), and
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on the following questions:
                                                                      b)    the employer grants a pay rise, which is not back-dated
                                                                            to the relevant period, at any time after the end of
1.   Are national provisions of the law on feedingstuffs, which             the relevant period used for calculating that woman’s
     prohibit imports of a feedingstuff manufactured lawfully               earnings-related element of SMP and before the end of
     in another Member State on the ground that the level of                her maternity leave:
     vitamin D 3 does not comply with the law of the State of
     importation, to be assessed directly in the light of
     Articles 28 and 30 EC?
                                                                      Question 1
2.   Is Article 19 of Directive 70/524/EEC (1) concerning
     additives to be interpreted as permitting the prohibition        Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty and the judgment in Gillespie
     on imports of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured          [1996] ECR I-475 to be interpreted as meaning that the
     lawfully in another Member State on the ground that it           woman is entitled to have that pay rise taken into consideration
     exceeds the level of vitamin D 3 permitted in the Member         in calculating or re-calculating the earnings-related element of
     State of importation?                                            her SMP?
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/26              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Question 2                                                             interpreted as precluding the Belgian administrative authority,
                                                                       to which an application to change the surname of minor
Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether the effective          children residing in Belgium who have dual Belgian and
date of the pay rise commences:                                        Spanish nationality has been made on the ground, without
                                                                       other special circumstances, that those children should bear
(i)   prior to the beginning of the woman’s maternity leave,           the surname to which they are entitled according to Spanish
                                                                       law and tradition, from refusing that change by stating that
(ii) prior to the ending of the period of the earnings-related         that type of application is habitually rejected on the ground
      period of her SMP, or                                            that, in Belgium, children bear their father’s surname’, particu-
                                                                       larly where the position usually adopted by the authority
                                                                       results from the fact that it considers that the grant of a
(iii) on some other date and, if so, on what date?
                                                                       different surname may, in the context of social life in Belgium,
                                                                       arouse questions as to the parentage of the child concerned,
                                                                       but that, in order to reduce the difficulties associated with dual
Question 3                                                             nationality, it is suggested to applicants in that situation
                                                                       that they adopt only the father’s first surname, and that,
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,                     exceptionally, where there are few connecting factors to
                                                                       Belgium or it is appropriate to re-establish the same surname
(i)   how should the calculation or re-alculation of the normal        among siblings, a favourable decision may be taken?
      weekly earnings in the relevant period take into account
      the pay rise?
(ii) Should the relevant period be changed?
(iii) What allowance, if any, should be made for other factors
      occurring within the period to which the pay rise relates
      such as the numbers of hours worked, and the reason for
      the pay increase?
(iv) Does it follow that if there is a reduction in pay after the      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
      end of the relevant period but before the end of the             di Genova by order of that Court of 18 April 2002 in the
      woman’s period of maternity leave, her SMP should be             action brought by Valentina Neri against the European
      calculated or re-calculated to take account of the               School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT World Education
      reduction of pay, and if so, how is this to be done?                                       System Ltd)
                                                                                (Case C-153/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/45)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,
section d’administration by judgment of that Court of
21 December 2001 in the case of Carlos Garcia Avello
                       against Etat Belge
                        (Case C-148/02)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di
                                                                       Genova (Office of the Magistrate Genoa) of 18 April 2002,
                        (2002/C 144/44)                                received at the Court Registry on 26 April 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the action brought by Valentina Neri
                                                                       against the European School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT
                                                                       World Education System Ltd) on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,
section d’administration (Belgian Council of State, administrat-       1.    Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
ive section) of 21 December 2001, received at the Court                      legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
Registry on 24 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case              hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
of Carlos Garcia Avello against Etat Belge on the following                  concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et
question:                                                                    seq EC), the right of establishment (Article 43 et seq. EC)
                                                                             and freedom to provide services (Article 49 et seq. EC), as
Are the principles of Community law relating to European                     interpreted by the Court of Justice. Of particular relevance
citizenship and to the freedom of movement of persons,                       in that regard are national rules and/or administrative
enshrined particularly in Articles 17 [EC] and 18 [EC], to be                practices which:


title: Joined Cases C-125/07 P, C-133/07 P, C-135/07 P and C-137/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (C-125/07 P), Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (C-133/07 P), Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (C-135/07 P), Österreichische Volksbanken AG (C-137/07 P) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fixing by Austrian banks of credit and debit interest rates — Lombard Club — Effect on trade between Member States — Calculation of fines — Takeover of undertakings — Concrete impact on the market — Implementation of the cartel)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (C-125/07 P), Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (C-133/07 P), Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (C-135/07 P), Österreichische Volksbanken AG (C-137/07 P) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-125/07 P, C-133/07 P, C-135/07 P and C-137/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fixing by Austrian banks of credit and debit interest rates - ‘Lombard Club’ - Effect on trade between Member States - Calculation of fines - Takeover of undertakings - Concrete impact on the market - Implementation of the cartel)
   2009/C 282/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (C-125/07 P) (represented by: F. Montag, Rechtsanwalt), Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (C-133/07 P) (represented by: S. Völcker and G. Terhorst, Rechtsanwälte), Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (C-135/07 P) (represented by: C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Rechtsanwälte), Österreichische Volksbanken AG (C-137/07 P) (represented by: A. Ablasser, R. Bierwagen and F. Neumayr, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and R. Sauer, Agents, D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and U. Zinsmeister, Rechstanwältin)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02, here with regard to Case T-264/02 Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v Commission, by which the Court dismissed in part the action, primarily, for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) (OJ 2004 L 56, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants — Cartel concerning the banking products and services market — Effect on trade between Member States — Method of calculating fines

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG, Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG and Österreichische Volksbanken AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.