title: Case C-114/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy

text:
C 173/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
      (i)   to indicate that it is necessary for a marketing                          or its ancillary site? Is it relevant generally, with
            authorisation to be granted for product B to be                           respect to falling within the definition of waste,
            supported by full clinical data of the type required                      whether the said by-products of mining operations
            by Part 4(F) of the Annex to Directive 75/318/EC (3);                     are stored on the area of the mining concession, its
            but                                                                       ancillary site or further away?
      (ii) having considered the data filed in support of
            product B, to grant a marketing authorisation for
            product C if that application is supported by trials                 (b) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
            not meeting the requirements of Part 4(F) of the                          that the leftover rock is the same as regards its
            Annex to Directive 75/318/EEC?                                            composition as the basic rock from which it is
                                                                                quarried, and that it does not change its composition
                                                                                regardless of how long it is kept and how it is kept?
                                                                                Should ore-dressing sand which results from the
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-                    ore-dressing process perhaps be assessed differently
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-                     from leftover stone in this respect?
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ 22,
    09.02.1965, p. 369 [SE SER 1 (65-66) p. 201]).
(2) ECR 1998 p. I-7967.
(3) Council Directive 75/318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approxi-
    mation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical,                  (c)  What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
    pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in                    that leftover rock is harmless to human health and
    respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products (OJ L 147,               the environment, but that, according to the view of
    09.06.1975, p. 1).                                                                the environmental licence authorities, substances
                                                                                harmful to health and the environment dissolve
                                                                                from ore-dressing sand? To what extent generally is
                                                                                importance to be attached to the possible effect of
                                                                                leftover rock and ore-dressing sand on health and
                                                                                the environment in assessing whether they are
                                                                                waste?
                                                                                (d) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
                                                                                that leftover rock and ore-dressing sand are not
                                                                                intended to be discarded? Leftover rock and ore-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
                                                                                dressing sand may be re-used without special pro-
hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in
                                                                                cessing measures, for example for supporting mine
   the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy
                                                                                galleries, and leftover rock also for landscaping the
                                                                                mine after it has ceased operation. Minerals may in
                           (Case C-114/01)                                            future with the development of technology be
                                                                                recovered from ore-dressing sand for utilisation. To
                                                                                what extent should attention be paid to how definite
                           (2001/C 173/40)                                            plans the person carrying on mining operations has
                                                                                for such utilisation and to how soon after the
                                                                                leftover rock and ore-dressing sand has been tipped
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on the mining concession or its ancillary site the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein hallinto-                             utilisation would take place?
oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 5 March
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 March
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
Outokumpu Chrome Oy on the following questions:                             (2) If the answer to the first question is that leftover rock
                                                                                and/or ore-dressing sand is to be regarded as waste within
                                                                                the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Council Directive on
(1) Are leftover rock resulting from the extraction of ore                       waste, it is further necessary to obtain an answer to the
      and/or ore-dressing sand resulting from the dressing of                    following supplementary questions:
      ore in mining operations to be regarded as waste
      within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2),
                                                                                (a)  Does ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of
      having regard to points (a) to (d) below?
                                                                                Article 2(1)(b) of the Waste Directive (91/156/EEC),
                                                                                waste covered by which is excluded from the scope
      (a)   What relevance, in deciding the above question,                           of the directive, and which under point (ii) concerns
            does it have that the leftover rock and ore-dressing                      inter alia waste resulting from prospecting, extrac-
            sand is stored on the area of the mining concession                       tion, treatment and storage of mineral resources,
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 173/25
           mean exclusively the European Community’s own                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
           legislation? Or may national legislation too, such as        Tribunal (Leeds), by order of that court of 12 January
           certain provisions of the Kaivoslaki and the Jätease-        2001, in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett
           tus in force in Finland, be ‘other legislation’ within                against Secretary of State for Employment
           the meaning of the Waste Directive?
                                                                                (Case C-137/01)
      (b) If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,
           does that mean exclusively national legislation
           which was already in force at the time of entry into                                  (2001/C 173/42)
           force of the Waste Directive 91/156/EEC or also
           that only enacted afterwards?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      (c)  If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,      European Communities by an order of the Employment
           do fundamental European Community provisions                 Tribunal (Leeds) of 12 January 2001, which was received at
           relating to environmental protection or the prin-            the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
           ciples of the Waste Directive set requirements for           in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett against
           national legislation concerning the level of environ-        Secretary of State for Employment, on the following question:
           mental protection as a condition for disapplying
           the rules of the Waste Directive? What sort of
                                                                        ‘Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (1) fully satisfied by
           requirements could those be?
                                                                        rules of national law which may result in a claim relating to
                                                                        holiday pay against the Guarantee Institution being dismissed
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
                                                                        owing to unforeseen delay in bringing about a state of
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                        insolvency in the employer, which delay was caused by the
                                                                        employer?’
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                            protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
                                                                            employer (OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Bologna by order of that court of 20 February 2001 in
the case of Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone
                          Ascensori SpA
                         (Case C-129/01)
                         (2001/C 173/41)                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                        Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich, by orders of
                                                                        28 February and 14 February 2001 in the cases of Christa
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Neukomm against Österreichischer Rundfunk and Josef
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bologna                      Lauermann against Österreichischer Rundfunk
of 20 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on
21 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone Ascensori SpA on                              (Cases C-138/01 and C-139/01)
the following question:
                                                                                (2001/C 173/43)
‘For the purposes of application of the provisions contained in
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts published in Official Journal               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1993 L 95, can the co-ownership of buildings referred to in             European Communities by orders of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Articles 1117-1139 of the Civil Code be regarded as a                   der Republik Österreich of 28 February and 14 February 2001,
consumer where the individual owners are natural persons or             received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a
are acting for purposes outside their trade, business or                preliminary ruling in the cases of Christa Neukomm against
profession?’                                                            Österreichischer Rundfunk and Josef Lauermann against Öster-
                                                                        reichischer Rundfunk on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                        1.    Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
                                                                              on data protection (Articles 1, 2, 6, 7 and 22 of Directive
                                                                              95/46/EC (1) in conjunction with Article 6 (formerly
                                                                              Article F) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 8


title: Case C-88/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 — Article 1(1) and (4) — Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 — Article 1(4)(f) — Article 290 TFEU — Suspension of exemption from the visa requirement — Insertion of a footnote — Amendment of the legislative act)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-88/14) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 - Article 1(1) and (4) - Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 - Article 1(4)(f) - Article 290 TFEU - Suspension of exemption from the visa requirement - Insertion of a footnote - Amendment of the legislative act))
   (2015/C 302/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, B. Martenczuk and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, A. Troupiotis and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents)
   Council of the European Union (represented by K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Škeřík, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-339/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-416/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/20

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-416/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-339/12 P)
   2012/C 295/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Pi-Design AG, Bodum France, and Bodum Logistics A/S, (represented by: H. Pernez, Advocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Squash the judgment of the General Court

               —

               Annul the Community trademark 1 372 580

         Subsidiairily

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court with the obligation to refer the case back to the Board of Appeal in the case of annulment of the latter's decision.

               —

               Order YOSHIDA METAL INDUSTRY CO. LTD. to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General court infringed Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Community trade mark regulation by applying incorrect criteria in the identification of the essential characteristics of the contested sign and by distorting the evidence before it.


title: Case T-490/04 and T-493/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2008 — Germany and Deutsche Post v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2008 — Germany and Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-490/04 and T-493/04) (1)

   (2008/C 171/92)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-399/13: Action brought on 2 August 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)

text:
               28.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/4

         Action brought on 2 August 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)
   (Case T-399/13)
   2013/C 284/05
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: KO-Invest Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2013 (Case R 720/2012-4) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32;

               —

               amend the contested decision by registering the mark for all of the goods applied for;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 31 369 and No 31 344, international registration (IR) No 163 135 and the well-known trade mark ‘MILKA’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78 of 24.3.2009, p. 1).


title: Case T-457/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission (Interim procedure — Authorisation of State aid for the restructuring of a bank — Abandonment of a branch as a compensatory indemnity — Urgency — Weighing up of the interests)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-457/09 R)
   (Interim procedure - Authorisation of State aid for the restructuring of a bank - Abandonment of a branch as a compensatory indemnity - Urgency - Weighing up of the interests)
   2011/C 160/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for stay of execution of Article 2(1), read in conjunction with points 5.4, 5.7 and 6.7 in the Annex to Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final corr. of 12 May 2009, in Case C-43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) concerning restructuring aid that the German authorities intend to implement for WestLB AG, reading that decision in conjunction with Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 in State aid Cases MC 8/2009 and C-43/2009 — Germany — WestLB, to the extent that it follows therefrom that new operations by the Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG must be terminated after 15 February 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 31 January 2011 in Case T-457/09 R Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission is rescinded.

               3.

               The applications to intervene made by Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG, Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landschaftsverband Rheinland, WestLB, the Land of Rhineland-North Westphalia and Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband have become devoid of purpose.

               4.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-608/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer (Instruments for writing)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/32

         Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer (Instruments for writing)
   (Case T-608/11)
   2012/C 32/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Beifa Group Co. Ltd (formerly Ningbo Beifa Group Co. Ltd) (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: R. Davis, Barrister, and N. Cordell, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co. KG (Heroldsberg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 August 2011 in case R 1838/2010-3; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design for the product ‘instruments for writing’ — registered Community design No 352315-0007

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: German trade mark registration No 30045470.8 of a figurative mark representing an instrument for writing, for goods in class 16; German trade mark registration No 936051 of a figurative mark representing an instrument for writing, for goods in class 16; German trade mark registration No 2911311 of a three-dimensional mark representing an instrument for writing, for goods in class 16; International trade mark registration No 936051 of a figurative mark representing an instrument for writing, for goods in class 16; International trade mark registration No 418036 of a figurative mark representing an instrument for writing, for goods in class 16

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested registered Community design invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 61(6) of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal proceeded to an impermissible re-examination. Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal; (i) violated the fundamental principles of this Article by the manner it applied the measures necessary to comply with the decision of the General Court; and (ii) erroneously applied the test for both Articles 25(1)(b) and 25(1)(e) CDR. Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal; (i) applied the wrong test to determine whether there was the requisite ‘use’ of the mark in the registered Community design; (ii) failed to consider whether the marks had been used both as an ingredient of Article 25(1)(e) CDR and as an ingredient of the German national law; and (iii) proceeded to an incorrect application of the test for right to prevent use. Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the characteristics of the informed user and both the manner and the method by which the assessment of overall impression should be made.


title: Case C-534/09: Action brought on 18 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/30

         Action brought on 18 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-534/09)
   2010/C 37/37
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M Patakia and A. Alcover San Pedro)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It follows from Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 2(4), of Directive 2008/1 (‘the IPPC Directive’) that the Member States are obliged to ensure that their competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive not later than 30 October 2007.
   According to the response of the Greek authorities to the Commission’s reasoned opinion, roughly 47 % of existing installations operating in Greece (148 out of 317) do not have an IPPC permit. Consequently, the Hellenic Republic admits that it continues to allow a large number of IPPC installations to operate without appropriate permits being granted.
   It should be noted that the Hellenic Republic has provided no justification or further explanation regarding the increase in the facilities in question, and no further development has been notified since the date upon which the abovementioned response to the reasoned opinion was sent.

      (1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 31 March 1998 in case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknappschaft (Case C-211/98)

text:
C 258/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
financial controls of insurance companies), the exceptions          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the freedom to provide services and the right of
establishment are those provided for by that directive and
not those which result from the application of Article 55           Ð find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of the EC Treaty.                                                       under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
                                                                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
(1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                        comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
                                                                        19 November 1992 on rental and lending rights
                                                                        related to copyright in the field of intellectual
                                                                        property (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                                                                        Commission thereof,
Reference      for    a    preliminary    ruling    by    the
                                                                        and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 31 March
 1998 in case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknappschaft
                       (Case C-211/98)
                                                                    Ð order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                        (98/C 258/37)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozial-
gericht (Federal Social Court) of 31 March 1998, received
                                                                    Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                    be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
ruling in the case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknapp-
                                                                    Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
schaft (Federal Insurance Fund for Miners) on the
                                                                    Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
following questions:
                                                                    down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1994
                                                                    without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
1. Is there, on the basis of the law relating to the                comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
    Association between the European Economic                       the Commission and/or informing the Commission
    Community        and     Turkey,   a    prohibition    of       thereof.
    discrimination in the field of social security which is
    directly applicable to a Turkish worker in the Federal          (1) OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
    Republic of Germany?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is that
    prohibition to be interpreted as precluding a national
    provision under which the applicable date of birth for
    statutory pension insurance benefits and for the
    insurance number assigned in that regard is the date            Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of
    which was documented when the Turkish worker was                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    first registered with a national social benefit
    institution?                                                                           (Case C-214/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/39)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice on 10 June 1998 by the
Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the              Commission of the European Communities, represented
           European Communities against Ireland                     by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
                       (Case C-213/98)                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                        (98/C 258/38)                               Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998 by               The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Ð by failing to refer to the category of solipeds/equidae
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its                   in the list of meat to which the fees laid down by
Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) apply,


title: Case T-351/16: Action brought on 1 July 2016 — Belgacom International Carrier Services/Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/49

         Action brought on 1 July 2016 — Belgacom International Carrier Services/Commission
   (Case T-351/16)
   (2016/C 305/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Belgacom International Carrier Services (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: Case C-304/15: Action brought on 19 June 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/18

         Action brought on 19 June 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-304/15)
   (2015/C 302/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, S. Petrova, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to correctly apply the Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (1) with regard to the Aberthaw Power Station in Wales, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3), read in conjunction with Annex VI, Part A, of Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that the United Kingdom has failed to correctly apply Article 4(3), read in conjunction with Part A of Annex VI to the Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants with regard to the Aberthaw Power Station. The Aberthaw Power Station, a coal-fired combustion plant with a rated thermal input of 4  090 MWth, thus entering the category of installations with a capacity exceeding 500 MWth, exceeds the applicable emission limit value for nitrogen oxides (NOx) under Article 4(3) of the said Directive as read together with its Article 14(1)(a) and Annex VI, Part A. Pursuant to the applicable provisions, the United Kingdom must ensure that a plant of this capacity, from 1 January 2008, does not exceed the limit value of 500 mg/Nm3 for NOx, reducing it to 200 mg/Nm3 as of January 2016. However, the plant’s emission limit value as set out in its permit is currently 1  050 mg/Nm3 for NOx.

      (1)  OJ L 309, p. 1


title: Case T-341/12: Action brought on 2 August 2012 — Evonik Degussa v Commission

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/9

         Action brought on 2 August 2012 — Evonik Degussa v Commission
   (Case T-341/12)
   2012/C 311/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, M. Holm-Hadulla and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012 concerning the refusal of a request by Evonik Degussa for confidential treatment of information in the decision in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the terms of reference of the hearing officer, (1) and of the applicant’s right to good administration and its right to be heard
               The applicant submits that the hearing officer did not examine its fundamental objections to publication, thereby failing to have regard to the scope of his powers and obligations, and infringing Article 8 of the terms of reference. Since neither the hearing officer nor any other Commission officer examined or took into consideration the applicant’s fundamental objections to the planned publication, the applicant takes the view that the Commission failed to investigate all relevant aspects of the particular case, thereby breaching the principles of good administration and of an effective hearing (Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons
               The applicant submits that the contested decision does not contain any statement of reasons in relation to the applicant’s objections to the publication of the extended version of the decision. The same applies as regards the Commission’s reasons and the public interest in the publication of the extended version almost five years after the original non-confidential version was issued.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of assessment by virtue of breach of the obligation of professional secrecy under Article 339 TFEU and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and failure to have regard to the confidentiality of the information to be published.

                           —

                           In the context of this plea, the applicant submits that the passages which the Commission plans to publish in the extended non-confidential version of the decision are protected by professional secrecy and to some extent also contain business secrets. The publication of that information in the internet infringes the applicant’s right to the maintenance of professional secrecy.

                           —

                           Further, the applicant submits that the planned publication of the information provided by the leniency applicants falls within the scope of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) and that Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) and the Leniency Notice (4) contain special rules on access to such information provided by leniency applicants. Therefore, according to the applicant, and in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau [2010] ECR I-5885, and judgment of 28 June 2012 in Case C-404/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, not yet published in the ECR), there is a presumption that publication of that information will harm the applicant’s commercial interests and the purpose of the Commission’s investigation. A special public interest in the publication of that information must therefore be specifically established. According to the applicant the hearing officer failed to do this, and thus made a manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of legal certainty
               The applicant submits that the Commission breached the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations when it refused the request for confidential treatment and decided to publish the contested version of the decision. Since making its applications for leniency the applicant has trusted in the confidentiality of the information transmitted. That trust is based on the leniency notices and the Commission’s established practice and, in the applicant’s view, merits protection. The principle of legitimate expectations is also breached by virtue of the fact that the Commission had already published a final non-confidential version of the decision in 2007, in respect of which it had accepted the applicant’s wishes concerning text to be omitted. The applicant submits that there is no basis in law or in fact for a subsequent modification of that decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the specific purpose requirement
               In the context of this plea the applicant submits that the use — for the purpose of informing the public — of information provided by leniency applicants is contrary to the specific purpose of that information provided for in Article 28(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and paragraph 48 of the Commission’s Notice on access to the file. (5) That is particularly the case where that use has occurred more than six years after the end of the administrative procedure.

      (1)  Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29).

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

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

      (5)  Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC], Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ 2005 C 325, p. 7).


title: Case C-350/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht, Bremen by order of that court of 25 August 1999 in the case of Wolfgang Lange against Georg Schünemann GmbH

text:
C 333/20              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
                                                                       Bremen by order of that court of 25 August 1999 in
— declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or           the case of Wolfgang Lange against Georg Schünemann
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                              GmbH
    Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uni-
    form procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
    goods by road (1), or in any event by failing to inform the                                (Case C-350/99)
    Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
    its obligations under that Directive;                                                      (1999/C 333/44)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                                                                       Court), Bremen of 25 August 1999, received at the Court
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           Registry on 22 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,         the case of Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH on
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           the following questions:
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January           1. Does Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of
1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary               14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of             employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or
the Commission.                                                            employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) also
                                                                           apply to agreements by the employee pursuant to which
(1) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35.                                           he undertakes in general terms to work overtime?
                                                                       2. Under Article 2 thereof is a national law transposing
                                                                           Directive 91/533 to be interpreted so as to render agree-
                                                                           ments invalid from a substantive point of view as well,
                                                                           where they not only lack the precision required thereby
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-                            but also confer on the employer vaguely formulated
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                      unilateral rights?
                     Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                       3. (a) In order to ensure an interpretation in conformity
                        (Case C-348/99)                                         with EC law, does Directive 91/533 require national
                                                                                principles, under which a party not complying with its
                        (1999/C 333/43)
                                                                                obligations to provide documentation is deemed to
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             have frustrated the production of evidence, to be
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    applied also where an employer has failed to provide
ties on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the                              information pursuant to Directive 91/533?
European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,
Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a national civil servant               (b) If Question 3(a) is answered in the negative, are
on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                   national principles of law precluded under the third
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                       indent of Article 6 of Directive 91/533 from being
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    applied in the manner described at (a) above?
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council on the legal protection of databases (1), the Grand
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Council of
    under that directive;                                              the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       19 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                Instance of the European Communities in case T-14/98 (1)
                                                                       between Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parlia-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ment, supported by the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                       Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely                        Union, supported by the French Republic
1 January 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not
adopted the measures necessary in order to comply with the                                    (Case C-353/99 P)
directive, and had not communicated to the Commission the
wording of the domestic legislation adopted to that end.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/45)
(1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 July 1999 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 183 /32    fENl               Official Journal of the European Communities                              17 . 6 . 97
                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                        NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                     (97/C 183 / 18 )
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of
            the European Communities No C 183 A of 17 June 1997 the following Notice of Open
            competition :
            Spanish edition
            CJ/LA/ 23 (Lawyer-linguists of Spanish mother-tongue)
            To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
           Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
            Closing date for application: 18 July 1997.


title: Case C-219/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 April 2013 — K Oy

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 April 2013 — K Oy
   (Case C-219/13)
   2013/C 178/12
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K Oy

      Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, Valtiovarainministeriö

      Question referred

   Do the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III (as that point appears in Council Directive 2009/47/EC) (1) to Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) on the common system of value added tax, when the principle of tax neutrality is taken into account, preclude national legislation under which a reduced rate of value added tax is applied to printed books, but the standard rate of tax is applied to books on other physical means of support such as a CD, CD-ROM or memory stick?
   As regards the answer given to the question above, is it of any significance

               —

               whether a book is intended to be read or to be listened to (an audiobook),

               —

               whether there exists a printed book with the same content as a book or audiobook on a CD, CD-ROM, memory stick or other equivalent physical means of support,

               —

               that a book on a physical means of support other than paper can exploit technical features provided by that means of support, such as search functions?

      (1)  Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (OJ 2009 L 116, p. 18).

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case F-3/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Accident — Request for a document to be placed on the accident file — Request refused — Measure not having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/27

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-3/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Accident - Request for a document to be placed on the accident file - Request refused - Measure not having an adverse effect - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 126/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 15 March 2010 and the claim for compensation for the damage suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011, p. 22.


title: Case F-6/12: Action brought on 11 January 2012 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/22

         Action brought on 11 January 2012 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-6/12)
   2012/C 184/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Dony, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the refusal to grant him an expatriation allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 October 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 24 May 2011 refusing to grant him an expatriation allowance.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-304/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 24 June 2014 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/39

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 24 June 2014 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS
   (Case C-304/14)
   2014/C 315/62
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Defendant: CS

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does European Union law, and in particular Article 20 TFEU, preclude a Member State from expelling from its territory to a non-Union country, a non-Union national who is the parent and primary carer of a child who is a citizen of that Member State (and, consequently, a citizen of the Union), where to do so would deprive the Union citizen child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his or her rights as a European Union citizen?

               2.

               If the answer to Question (1) is ‘No’, in what circumstances would such an expulsion be permitted under European Union Law?

               3.

               If the answer to Question (1) is ‘No’, to what extent, if any, do Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)(the ‘Citizens Directive’) inform the answer to Question (2)?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Case T-319/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014  — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/25

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council
   (Case T-319/13) (1)

   2014/C 329/40
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
   (Case C-7/12)
   2012/C 65/17
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nadežda Riežniece

      Defendants: Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave included in annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (2) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC be interpreted as meaning that an employer is precluded from undertaking any action (in particular, the assessment of an employee while absent) which might result in a female employee on parental leave losing her post after returning to work?

               2.

               Does the answer to the previous question differ if the reason for such action is the fact that, due to the economic recession in a Member State, in all the administrations of the State the number of civil servants has been optimised and posts abolished?

               3.

               Must the assessment of an applicant’s work and merits which takes into account his latest annual performance appraisal as a civil servant and his results before parental leave be regarded as indirect discrimination when compared to the fact that the work and merits of other civil servants who have continued in active employment (taking the opportunity, moreover, to achieve further merit) are assessed according to fresh criteria?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.


title: Case T-310/07: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — gardeur v OHIM — Blue Rose (g)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/78

         Order of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — gardeur v OHIM — Blue Rose (g)
   (Case T-310/07) (1)

   2010/C 113/112

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-374/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Gintec International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV (Directives 2001/83/EC and 92/28/EEC — National legislation prohibiting advertising of medicinal products by way of statements of third parties or prize draws — Use of generally positive results of a consumer survey and a monthly prize draw to win a pack of the product)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Gintec International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV
   (Case C-374/05) (1)

   (Directives 2001/83/EC and 92/28/EEC - National legislation prohibiting advertising of medicinal products by way of statements of third parties or prize draws - Use of generally positive results of a consumer survey and a monthly prize draw to win a pack of the product)
   (2007/C 315/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gintec International Import-Export GmbH

      Defendant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 87(3) and 90(j) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34), and Articles 2(3) and 5(j) of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 13) — National legislation prohibiting advertising for medicinal products by way of statements of third parties having no specialist knowledge or by lotteries — Use of generally positive results of a customer survey and a monthly prize draw to win a pack of the product
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, brought about complete harmonisation in the field of advertising of medicinal products and lists expressly the cases in which Member States are authorised to adopt provisions departing from the rules laid down by that directive. The directive must therefore be interpreted to the effect that a Member State may not provide, in its national legislation, for an absolute and unconditional prohibition, in the advertising of medicinal products to the general public, on the use of statements from third parties, whilst their use can be limited, under that same directive, only by reason of their specific content or the type of person making the statement.

               2.

                           (a)

                           Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, requires Member States to provide, in their national legislation, for a prohibition on the use, in the advertising of medicinal products to the general public, of statements from third parties where those refer, in improper, alarming or misleading terms, to claims of recovery within the meaning of Article 90(j) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, the term ‘claims of recovery’ having thus to be interpreted as not including references to the reinforcement of a person's well-being where the therapeutic efficacy of the medicinal product in terms of the elimination of a particular illness is not referred to. Article 90(c) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, also requires Member States to provide, in their national legislation, for a prohibition on the use, in the advertising of medicinal products to the general public, of statements from third parties where they give the impression that the use of the medicinal product contributes to the reinforcement of general well-being.

                           (b)

                           Articles 87(3), 88(6) and 96(1) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, prohibit the advertising of a medicinal product by means of a prize draw announced on the internet, inasmuch as it encourages the irrational use of that medicinal product and leads to its direct distribution to the general public and to the presentation of free samples.

               3.

               The first and second questions submitted for a preliminary ruling would be answered in the same way if the provisions of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use applied.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case C-450/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 8 October 2012 — HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 8 October 2012 — HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-450/12)
   2012/C 389/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is heading 7321 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the stove pipe sets described in greater detail in the grounds can be regarded as parts of stoves, ranges, grates, and cookers?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the stove pipe sets then be classified under heading 7307?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.


title: Case T-364/13: Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Mocek et Wenta/OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/46

         Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Mocek et Wenta/OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)
   (Case T-364/13)
   2013/C 260/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Eugenia Mocek (Chojnice, Poland) and Jadwiga Wenta (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lacoste SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 May 2013 in Case R 2466/2010-4 and grant protection to the trade mark applied for for all the goods covered by the application;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court, including the expenses of the applicant, as well as the necessary costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicants

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colours green, white and grey containing the word element ‘KAJMAN’ placed between the back and the head of a crocodile for goods and services in classes 18, 20, 22, 25 and 36 — Community trade mark registration No 5 686 845

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark of the figurative mark in black and white presenting a crocodile and the word mark ‘CROCODILE’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 36

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision insofar as the opposition was rejected for certain goods in classes 18 and 25, and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for these goods

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-308/07: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — Tegebauer v Parliament (Right to petition — Petition addressed to the Parliament — Decision to take no action — Action for annulment — Actionable measure — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/34

         Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — Tegebauer v Parliament
   (Case T-308/07) (1)

   (Right to petition - Petition addressed to the Parliament - Decision to take no action - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 311/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingo-Jens Tegebauer (Trier, Germany) (represented initially by R. Nieporte then by H.-B. Pfriem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by H. Krück and M. Windisch, then by N. Lorenz and E. Waldherr, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by Mr Ingo-Jens Tegebauer on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007);

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Tegebauer.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-175/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Sandler AG v Hauptzollamt Regensburg (Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Preferential arrangement for the import of products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States — Articles 16 and 32 of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement — Import of synthetic fibres from Nigeria into the European Union — Irregularities in the movement certificate EUR.1 established by the competent authorities of the State of export — Stamp not matching the specimen notified to the Commission — Post-clearance and replacement certificates — Community Customs Code — Articles 220 and 236 — Possibility of retrospective application of a preferential customs duty no longer in effect on the date when the request for repayment is made — Conditions)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/9

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Sandler AG v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
   (Case C-175/12) (1)

   (Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Preferential arrangement for the import of products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States - Articles 16 and 32 of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement - Import of synthetic fibres from Nigeria into the European Union - Irregularities in the movement certificate EUR.1 established by the competent authorities of the State of export - Stamp not matching the specimen notified to the Commission - Post-clearance and replacement certificates - Community Customs Code - Articles 220 and 236 - Possibility of retrospective application of a preferential customs duty no longer in effect on the date when the request for repayment is made - Conditions)
   2013/C 367/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sandler AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the second indent of Article 889(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007 (OJ 2007 L 62, p. 6), and Articles 16 and 32 of Protocol No 1 of Annex V to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ 2000 L 317, p. 3) — Import of synthetic fibres from Nigeria into the European Union — Whether possible to apply a posteriori a preferential customs tariff no longer in force when the request for repayment is made — Situation in which the goods were imported when that preferential tariff was still in force but its application was refused because of a stamp not complying with the specimen notified to the Commission on the EUR.1 goods movement certificate

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 889(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended most recently by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a request for repayment of customs duties where preferential customs treatment was requested and granted at the time the goods were placed in free circulation and it was only subsequently, in the course of a post-clearance examination after the expiry of the preferential customs arrangement and the re-establishment of the customs duties normally due, that the authorities of the State of import recovered the difference between that and the customs duty applicable to goods originating from a non-member country.

               2.

               Articles 16(1)(b) and 32 of Protocol No 1 of Annex V to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, and approved in behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2003/159/EC of 19 December 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that if it transpires in a post-clearance examination that a stamp not matching the specimen notified by the authorities of the State of export was affixed to the EUR.1 certificate, the customs authorities of the State of import may refuse that certificate and return it to the importer in order to allow him to obtain a certificate issued retrospectively pursuant to Article 16(1)(b) of Protocol No 1 rather than triggering the procedure provided for in Article 32 of that protocol.

               3.

               Articles 16(4) and (5) and 32 of Protocol No 1 must be interpreted as precluding the authorities of a State of import from refusing to accept, as a EUR.1 certificate issued retrospectively within the meaning of Article 16(1) of that protocol, a EUR.1 certificate which, whilst complying in all other respects with the requirements of the provisions of that protocol, does not contain, in the ‘Remarks’ box, the wording specified by Article 16(4) of Protocol No 1, but an indication to the effect that the EUR.1 certificate was issued pursuant to Article 16(1) of that protocol. In cases of doubt as to the authenticity of that document or the originating status of the products concerned, those authorities are required to initiate the control procedure provided for in Article 32 of that protocol.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case C-80/10: Action brought on 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/28

         Action brought on 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-80/10)
   2010/C 100/43
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F Jimeno Fernández and A. Markouli)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that Ministerial Order 552 of the Hellenic Republic of 25 August 2004 as amended up until 8 September 2008, and more specifically Article 4(2), (4), (5) and (7), Article 5(4), (5), (6) and (7) and Article 6(2), infringe Article 3(1) and (6), Article 15(1), Article 16(1) and (2) and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the ministerial order in question relating to official controls in respect of cereals upon their importation from third countries is incompatible with particular provisions of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
   More specifically, the Greek ministerial order lays down general rules regarding the frequency of physical checks of consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin from third countries, which do not enable the physical checks to be carried out by the competent authority with the degree of flexibility and of differentiation that is required for the system laid down by Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
   Furthermore, it lays down general rules concerning the official detention of such consignments, which provide for the official detention of consignments even in the case of routine checks. That indiscriminate detention of consignments without suspicion of non-compliance or doubt is contrary to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. In addition, the ministerial order allows the release of all consignments after seven working days, even where there is suspicion of non-compliance or doubt, which also infringes Article 18 of the regulation.
   The ministerial order lays down specific rules concerning checks of consignments from third countries for the presence of unauthorised genetically modified organisms. Those checks must be carried out at a frequency of 50 % for consignments of wheat and 100 % for consignments of corn. The Commission considers that these rates are exceptionally high and are not compatible with the system established by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, in particular Article 16(1) and (2) thereof, and that they result from a failure to assess the risk correctly and to differentiate.
   The ministerial order lays down that checks of consignments of corn from Bulgaria and Romania for the presence of unauthorised genetically modified organisms are to be carried out at a frequency of 100 %. The Commission considers that checks at such a frequency are contrary to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, which provides that checks of consignments from other Member States must be based on the risks and be non-discriminatory and proportionate.
   The Hellenic Republic has not put forward sufficient explanation and information to justify the adoption of the abovementioned provisions of the ministerial order relating to official controls in respect of cereals upon their importation from third countries and other Member States of the European Union.


title: Case F-51/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 June 2007 — Tesoka v Eurofound (Staff cases — Members of the temporary staff — European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions — Resignation — Action for annulment and damages — No decision adversely affecting an individual — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 June 2007 — Tesoka v Eurofound
   (Case F-51/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Members of the temporary staff - European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - Resignation - Action for annulment and damages - No decision adversely affecting an individual - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 199/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sabrina Tesoka (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (represented by: C. Callanan, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions not to grant the applicant's claim for the damages to which she alleged she was entitled following her resignation, pursuant to Regulation No 1111/2005, and, second, a claim for damages (Case T-398/05 referred back by the Court of First Instance).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 28.


title: Case C-332/04: Action brought on 28 July 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/16

         Action brought on 28 July 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-332/04)
   (2004/C 262/29)
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service, and by Florence Simonetti, a detached national expert assigned to that service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               (a)

               declare that:

                           —

                           by incompletely transposing Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, (2)

                           —

                           by failing to transpose Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended,

                           —

                           by infringing the transitional rules laid down by Article 3 of Directive 97/11/EC,

                           —

                           by failing correctly to transpose point 10(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and Article 4(2), and

                           —

                           by failing to subject to the impact assessment procedure the plans for the construction of a leisure centre at Paterna (Valencia) and, consequently, by failing to apply Articles 2(1), 3, 4(2), 8 and 9 of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               (b)

               order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Spanish legislation amending domestic law so as to make it conform with Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, comprising essentially Royal Legislative Decree No 1302/1986 of 28 June 1986, on environmental impact evaluation, as amended by Law No 6/2001 of 8 May 2001, does not require the environmental impact assessment to evaluate the foreseeable effects of the interaction of various environmental factors with each other, contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended.
   The Spanish legislation does not include an obligation to render public the administrative decision to grant or withhold authorisation for implementation of the project, the terms of the decision and the conditions attached to it, contrary to the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended.
   Articles 3(1) and (2) of Directive 97/11/EC state that the provisions of that Directive are to be applied to new projects for which authorisation is sought on or after 14 March 1999. The Spanish legislation breaches that Community provision since it does not apply to private projects for which the administrative authorisation procedure is pending or to public projects already at the public information stage or already approved before 8 October 2000.
   Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, includes in Point 10(b), among the projects which may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment, urban-development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and parking facilities. The Spanish legislation reduces that requirement so as to apply only to projects outside urban areas. The Commission considers that that reduction of scope, which generally excludes the taking into consideration of criteria or thresholds relating to the dimensions and nature of the projects, goes beyond the degree of latitude available to the Member States under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended. In addition, it is clear from an analysis of the State and Autonomous Community legislation on town planning and of the Autonomous Community legislation on environmental impact assessments that urban-development projects on urban land and developable land are not, in most of the Autonomous Communities, subject to environmental impact assessment.
   Because the domestic legislation was not properly amended so as to conform with Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, the Spanish authorities did not carry out an environmental impact assessment for a leisure centre at Paterna (Valencia), the only explanation given for not doing so being that it was to be constructed in an urban area.

      (1)  OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.

      (2)  Council Directive of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC, OJ L 73 of 14.3.1997, p. 5.


title: Case T-417/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/14

         Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission
   (Case T-417/16)
   (2016/C 371/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Achemos Grupė UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) and Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Martens and C. Maczkovics, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 20 November 2013 in case State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) — Lithuania, Aid to Klaipedos Nafta — LNG Terminal, Brussels, C(2013) 7884 final, OJ C 161, 2016, p. 1; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of procedural rules contained in Article 108(2) TFEU, in Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and of good administration, because, despite the serious difficulties involved in assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the State aid measures at issue, the Commission solely relied on a preliminary examination of the State aid measures, whereas, in view of those serious difficulties, the Commission was under an obligation to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, because the Commission does not apply correctly the criteria of assessment as set out in Recital 135 of the contested decision, whereas,

                           —

                           first part, as regards the appropriateness and necessity of the measures, the Commission should have assessed those measures concretely and examined whether there were other, better-targeted instruments;

                           —

                           second part, the Commission should have concluded to the lack of incentive effect since KN is legally obliged to develop the LNG Terminal;

                           —

                           third part, the Commission should have assessed whether the size of the subsidised LNG Terminal was proportionate to attain the objective pursued and did not create overcapacity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 106(2) TFEU, of the SGEI Framework (2) and of the general principles such as equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations, as well as of the procurement rules contained in Directive 2004/18 (3), and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18, because the Commission wrongfully applied the SGEI Framework, in accepting a direct entrustment of KN for a period of 55 years with a profit corresponding to the project internal rate of return, whereas,

                           —

                           first part, the entrustment period should have been justified by reference to objective criteria without exceeding the period required for the (financial) depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI;

                           —

                           second part, appointment of KN could not have been exempted from procurement rules on grounds of the protection of essential (security) interests within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18 since alternative means, that are less restrictive in nature then a direct award, are available in in the present case;

                           —

                           third part, given the level of risk borne by KN, the latter's profit should have been limited to the relevant swap rate (as possibly re-evaluated to take maturity into account) plus a premium of 100 basis points.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 2015, p. 9)

      (2)  Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011), (OJ 2012, C 8, p. 15) (hereafter, the ‘SGEI Framework’)

      (3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 2004, p. 114)