title: Case C-283/00: Action brought on 18 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 259/12                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
Appeal brought on 14 July 2000 by Una Film ‘City Revue’                4.    Order the respondents and the interveners in their
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000                          support jointly and severally to bear the costs of the
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                       proceedings.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and
T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film
‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
& Co Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and
Davidoff & Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV,
Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and                      —     Mistaken assessment of the scope of the criterion of
Lancaster BV, and European Parliament and Council of                         ‘individual concern’ in the fourth paragraph of Article
the European Union, supported by Republic of Finland,                        173 of the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of
Commission of the European Communities, United                               Article 230 EC) as a condition of admissibility for actions
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and                            for annulment brought by natural or legal persons: the
                           French Republic                                   Court of First Instance wrongly equates the criterion of
                                                                             ‘individual concern’ by a directive with the criterion of
                                                                             ‘direct effect’ of the directive in question to the detriment
                          (Case C-281/00 P)                                  of individuals.
                           (2000/C 259/20)                             —     Mistaken assessment of the scope of the right, which is
                                                                             one of the general principles of Community law, to
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by                  effective judicial protection in the event of infringements
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      of Community law: the Court of First Instance wrongly
European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and                            failed to interpret and apply the existing legal protection
T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film                         system and constitutional system of the Community
‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co                      in accord with the mandatory requirements of the
Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff &                      fundamental right of the individual to an effective legal
Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane                      remedy.
Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European
Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by
Republic of Finland, Commission of the European Communi-
ties, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and French Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Una
Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, represented by Dr Rainer Borgelt,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, assisted by Professor Manfred Dau-
ses, University of Bamberg, with an address for service in             Action brought on 18 July 2000 by the Commission of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Reding & Felten, 2 Rue                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
J.-P. Brasseur, L-1258 Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-283/00)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                       (2000/C 259/21)
      (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in Joined Cases
      T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 and reject the plea
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      of inadmissibility put forward by the defendants and
                                                                       Court of Justice on 18 July 2000 by the Commission of
      respondents;
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
                                                                       Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
2.    Consequently, declare the application of the applicant           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
      and appellant of 22 October 1998, received at the                Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 October
      1998, admissible;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
3.    Uphold the said application and consequently annul the
      contested Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament          1.    Declare that, by not complying with the provisions of
      and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation                 Directive 93/37/EEC as a whole and more specifically
      of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 with the provisions on public notices contained in
      of the Member States relating to the advertising and                   Article 11(2), (6), (7) and (11) and those of Articles 12(1),
      sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9);                 29(3), 18, 27 and 30(4), in connection with the tendering
                                                                             procedure for the execution of works for the Segovia
      In the alternative:                                                    Experimental Educational and Penitentiary Centre issued
                                                                             by Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos
      Remit the case to the Court of First Instance for the                  Penitenciarios, SA, a company falling within the definition
      purpose of continuing the main proceedings;                            of contracting authority contained in Article 1(b) of
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/13
      Directive 93/37/EEC (1), for which the amount exceeds by             Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of
      a considerable margin the threshold for application of                the European Communities against the French Republic
      the directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Community law;                                                                (Case C-285/00)
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                                   (2000/C 259/22)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July
                                                                           2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
The Commission considers that Sociedad Estatal de Infraestruc-             represented by Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
turas y Equipamientos Penitenciarios, SA (SIEPSA) is a ‘body               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
governed by public law’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of              of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Directive 93/37/EEC and, consequently, a contracting auth-                 Centre, Kirchberg.
ority in so far as it fulfils the three conditions laid down in that
article. SIEPSA was set up to meet a need in the general                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
interest: to help apply penitentiary policy through the                    the Court should:
implementation of programmes and action provided for in the
Plan de Amortización y Creación de Centros Pentenciarios                 1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the specific rules concern-
(Plan for the amortisation and establishment of penitentiary                     ing recognition of diplomas providing access to the
institutions) approved by the Council of Ministers. That general                 profession of psychologist and transposing Directive
interest is of neither a commercial nor an industrial nature.                    89/48/EEC (1) with regard to that profession, the French
Although the company engages in activities of a mercantile                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
nature, they are no more than a means of meeting that                            directive;
general interest of a non-commercial and non-industrial nature
(application of the State penitentiary policy). That company is            2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
therefore required, despite its being a company subject to
private law, to comply with the provisions of the directive in
all matters relating to the award of its works contracts. In such          Pleas in law and main arguments
circumstances, the tendering procedure at issue should have
been conducted in full compliance with Directive 93/37/EEC                 In France, the profession of psychologist is regulated, particu-
and, in particular, the provisions mentioned in the form of                larly as regards the right to use that professional title.
order sought.                                                              Consequently, France should have adopted the measures
                                                                           necessary in order to comply with Directive 89/48/EEC, and
                                                                           should have notified the Commission thereof.
(1) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
    of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993
    L 199, p. 54).                                                         (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                               system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                               on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                               three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16).


title: Case T-259/11: Action brought on 16 May 2011 — Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšānas centrs v European Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/33

         Action brought on 16 May 2011 — Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšānas centrs v European Commission
   (Case T-259/11)
   2011/C 252/78
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšānas centrs (represented by: E. Darapolskis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the European Commission concerning contract 2003/004-979-06-03/1/0027 ‘Būvmateriālu inivāciju un testēšānas centra izveide’ concluded in the framework of the 2003 Latvian national PHARE programme, and a declaration that there are no grounds for the recovery of the financing for the PHARE programme in the amount of EUR 1 576 010,80.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the decision of the European Commission (‘Commission’) concerning contract 2003/004-979-06-03/1/0027 ‘Būvmateriālu inivāciju un testēšānas centra izveide’ concluded in the framework of the 2003 Latvian national PHARE programme (‘the contested decision’) it was decided to recover financial aid granted by the European Union amounting to EUR 1 474 200.
   The applicant considers that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has disregarded the financial protocol adopted on 19 September 2003 by the European Community and the Republic of Latvia, concerning the financing of the 2003 Latvian national PHARE programme (‘financial protocol’), on the basis of which a contract regarding the grant of financing was concluded with the applicant on 23 August 2005 and aid under PHARE was granted in the amount of EUR 1 576 010,80. In addition, the applicant maintains that the Commission failed to comply with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) (‘Financial Regulation’) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (‘implementing regulation’).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the Commission adopted the contested decision without having carried out a careful examination of the circumstances of the matter and an assessment of the facts, basing its decision solely on statements by officials of the Republic of Latvia, which, in turn, were not based on reports or decisions of the competent authorities. The applicant considers that, before beginning the procedure for recovery, the Commission was required to prove the infringements mentioned in the statements by those officials of the Republic of Latvia and obtain all the necessary evidence, which the Commission did not do, limiting itself to examining formally the previous correspondence. In its opinion, the result was that in the present case important facts were overlooked and the financing of the PHARE programme which had been paid was reclaimed without grounds.
   Second, the applicant claims that the Commission did not make use of the options which the financial protocol, the Financial Regulation and the implementing regulation allow it. On that point, the applicant asserts that, in pointing to the existence of infringements, the Commission must first have calculated the financial impact on the Community budget; subsequently if it had observed that the infringements could have significant financial consequences it should have allowed the Republic of Latvia a period of time to remedy them. It asserts that, in the present case, the Commission did not make use of those options and as a result the contested decision breached the financial protocol, Article 71 of the Financial Regulation and Articles 79 and 80 of the implementing regulation.
   Third, the applicant asserts that the contested decision is disproportionate and was adopted in breach of the procedure for adoption of decisions laid down not only in the financial protocol, but also in the Financial Regulation and the implementing regulation. In addition, it alleges that the contested decision was not published, it did not give a date of adoption and the applicant learned of the decision only after 9 March 2011 in the context of judicial proceedings brought in Latvia.
   Fourth, the applicant maintains that the contested decision had serious consequences for it and caused it to suffer losses, given that it is the cause of judicial proceedings brought against it and prevents it from continuing to receive financing from the PHARE programme.
   Fifthly and finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision seriously damaged its reputation, given that, because of the unlawful actions of the Commission, the participation of new partners in the project has been jeopardised and the confidence of investors in the applicant as a safe and stable financial partner has greatly decreased.

      (1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case 376/02, O v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Invalidity pension — Invalidity Committee — Membership — Occupational disease)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 23 November 2004
   in Case 376/02, O v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Invalidity pension - Invalidity Committee - Membership - Occupational disease)
   (2005/C 45/51)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-376/02: O, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall) – action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity pension set in accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity pension.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.03.


title: Case C-383/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of  7 October 2005  in Raffaele Talotta v État belge

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of 7 October 2005 in Raffaele Talotta v État belge
   (Case C-383/05)
   (2006/C 10/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation de Belgique (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 7 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Raffaele Talotta and the État belge on the following question:
   Is Article 43 (formerly Article 52) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as prohibiting a provision of national law, such as Article 182 of the [Belgian] Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992, whereby minimum tax bases are applied only in the case of non-residents?


title: Case T-207/12 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/27

         Appeal brought on 11 May 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-207/12 P)
   2012/C 194/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul in its entirety and without exception whatsoever the order under appeal;

               —

               Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance under appeal;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the appellant all the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11 rejecting as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of the alleged refusal on the part of the European Commission to place a document on the file relating to his accident and, second, an order that the Commission pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the damage alleged.
   The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons for the ruling that the action was manifestly inadmissible and manifest uncertainty, inconsistent reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, self-evident, illogical, irrelevant and unreasonable reasoning, infringement of the obligation of clare loqui, failure to rule on one of the appellant’s claims, and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

                           Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

                           the rules of law relating to the concept of an actionable measure (in particular, at paragraphs 30 to 47 of the order under appeal);

                           the rules of law concerning the processing of and access by the individual to personal data affecting him which is held by a European Union institution;

               2.

               Second ground, alleging that the court at first instance’s rulings on costs are unlawful (between paragraphs 47 and 48 of the order under appeal).


title: Case T-386/17: Action brought on 23 June 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Лидер)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/40

         Action brought on 23 June 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Лидер)
   (Case T-386/17)
   (2017/C 256/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Лидер’ — Application No 15 466 791

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 in Case R 2066/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-197/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium)) — Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken (Recognition of diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Estate agent)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium)) — Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken
   (Case C-197/06) (1)

   (Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Estate agent)
   (2008/C 142/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars

      Defendant: Willem Van Leuken
   Re:
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Obligation on an estate agent established in one Member State and engaged in agency activities in another Member State to satisfy the conditions governing the exercise of that profession which are imposed by the legislation of that latter State in pursuance of the directive — Requirement imposed even in the case where there is a contract of collaboration between that estate agent and an estate agent who is authorised by that latter State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings by a service provider established in another Member State, and in a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Areva and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Rights of the defence — Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Whether answerable for the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Joint and several liability for payment of a fine — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Areva and Others v Commission
   (Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Rights of the defence - Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Whether answerable for the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Joint and several liability for payment of a fine - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2011/C 113/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Areva, société anonyme, established in Paris (France); Areva T&D Holding SA; established in Paris, Areva T&D SA; established in Paris; Areva T&D AG, established in Oberentfelden (Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schild and J.-M. Cot, lawyers); and Alstom, société anonyme, (Levallois-Perret, France), (represented initially by J. Derenne, lawyer, W. Broere, Solicitor, A. Müller-Rappard and C. Guirado, lawyers, and then by J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by X. Lewis and F. Arbault, then by X. Lewis, and finally by V. Bottka and N. Von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 Final of 24 January 2007, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas Insulated Switchgear), concerning a cartel in the gas insulated switchgear projects sector entailing manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, the fixing of minimum tender prices, the allocation of quotas and of projects, and exchanges of information, and also, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(b) and (c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear);

               3.

               For the infringements found in Article 1(b) to (f) of Decision C(2006) 6762 final, imposes the following fines:

                           —

                           Alstom, société anonyme: EUR 10 327 500;

                           —

                           Alstom: EUR 48 195 000, for which it is jointly and severally liable with Areva T&D SA. In respect of EUR 20 400 000 of the amount owed by Areva T&D SA, it is jointly and severally liable together with Areva T&D AG, Areva, société anonyme, and Areva T&D Holding SA;

               4.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               5.

               In Case T-117/07, orders the European Commission to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by Areva, Areva T&D Holding, Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG and one-tenth of its own costs. Areva, Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG are ordered to pay nine-tenths of their own costs and nine-tenths of the Commission’s costs;

               6.

               In Case T-121/07, orders the Commission to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by Alstom and one-tenth of its own costs. Alstom is ordered to pay nine-tenths of its own costs and nine-tenths of the Commission’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 October 2015 in Case E-11/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights)

text:
               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 467/24

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 27 October 2015
   in Case E-11/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights)
   (2016/C 467/11)
   In Case E-11/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — Application for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-423/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — De Masi v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/15

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — De Masi v Commission
   (Case T-423/16)
   (2016/C 371/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Prof. A. Fischer-Lescano)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 20 May 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 13 July 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party pursuant to 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 two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               The applicant claims that the defendant’s decisions of May 2016 and 13 July 2016 infringe the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
               The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.
               The applicant claims, in that regard, that the exceptions to the transparency requirement to which Article 4(3) and (1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 refers are not applicable in the present case.
               Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons, as well as an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2012 L 145, p. 43).


title: Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership against the Council of the European Union (Case T-125/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96         1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 318 / 15
otherwise the objectives which Decision 94/90/EC is                    The applicants submit that the prohibition laid down in
intended to achieve would not be attained . This is all the            Articles 2 ( b ) and 3 ( a ) of the Directive, in so far as they refer
more so in the present case, in which the non-production of            to the therapeutic use of beta-agonists in approved
the documents requested, which form the subject-matter of              veterinary medicinal products, will deprive them of their
an application for measures of organization of procedure in            right to manufacture and market the veterinary medicinal
another case, is contrary to the proper administration of              products in question for which they hold regular licences in
justice .                                                              conformity with applicable European rules . This
                                                                       interference with the applicants ' specific rights is not
In addition , the applicant asserts that there has been an             consistent with EC fundamental principles of law, such as
infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of               the principle of proportionality, the principles of legal
reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty .                     certainty and of legitimate expectations, and the principle of
                                                                       good administration .
                                                                       In this regard the applicants, while understanding the
                                                                       legitime interest of the Council and the Commission to
Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim                combat the illegal use of beta-agonists as bulk chemicals for
Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited                       growing purposes, consider that a ban on the placing on the
  Partnership against the Council of the European Union                market of their veterinary medicinal products is not
                                                                       justified . Indeed, as a consequence of that ban :
                        ( Case T-125 /96
                          ( 96/C 318/29 )                              — animals are deprived of an essential product for the
                                                                            protection of their health ,
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       — the applicants are denied their legitimate right to
An action against the Council of the European Communities                   continue to market products which are praised by all
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       practitioners for their safety and quality .
European Communities on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                     Such effects cannot be justified by the aim pursued by the
Limited Partnership, represented by Messer Denis                       Council when adopting the contested measure .
Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard , of the Brussels Bar,
Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , 3                        Moreover, Article 43 of the EC Treaty has been violated, in
boulevard de l'Empereur, Brussels, with an address for                 so far as the European Parliament was consulted on a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt &                       proposal which differed substantially from the text of
Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                    Directive 96/22/EC .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            (>) OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
— annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive
      96/22/EC of 29 April 1 996 ( 1 ), in so far as they prohibit
      the placing on the market of veterinary medicinal
      products containing beta-agonists for administering for
      therapeutic purposes to animals the flesh and products
      of which are intended for human consumption ,                     Action brought on 12 August 1996 by Breda Fucine
                                                                        Meridionali SpA against the Commission of the European
— condemn the Community, as represented here by the                                                  Communities
      Council, to repair the damage suffered by them as a                                         ( Case T-126/96 )
      result of the contested measure,
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/30 )
 — order the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 The applicants are the sole significant producers of                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
 medicines based on beta-agonists of the kind affected by               Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
 Directive 96/22/EC . According to them, Directive 96/22/EC             by Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA, whose registered office is
 targets specifically their products, which must be seen as             at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
 having motivated the Community institutions in this                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
 matter .
                                                                        service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36 ,
 The prohibition referred to in the contested Directive will , in       place du Grand Sablon .
 fact, prevent the administering of beta-agonists to treat
 respiratory disorders in food producing animals of any                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 species . The other common therapeutic use of beta-agonists ,
 i.e. inducing tocolysis in cows when calving, will continue to         — annul in whole or, in the alternative , in part ( as regards
 be authorized by the Directive .                                           the points referred to in this action ) the Commission's


title: Case F-34/12: Action brought on 13 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Action brought on 13 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-34/12)
   2012/C 184/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of the competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AD/207/11 of 3 December 2011 rejecting the request for review made by the applicant on 3 August 2011, against the earlier decision of that selection board not to invite the applicant to the assessment centre stage, communicated to the latter by letter from ESPO dated 26 July 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material damage caused as a consequence of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-43/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — van Heuckelom v European Police Office (Europol) (Civil Service — Staff Regulations of Europol — Article 29 — Advancement in step granted on the basis of staff reports — Plea of illegality of the decision establishing the policy for determining grades and steps — Respective powers of Europol’s Director and Management Board — Europol’s Director’s discretion — Limits)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — van Heuckelom v European Police Office (Europol)
   (Case F-43/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Staff Regulations of Europol - Article 29 - Advancement in step granted on the basis of staff reports - Plea of illegality of the decision establishing the policy for determining grades and steps - Respective powers of Europol’s Director and Management Board - Europol’s Director’s discretion - Limits)
   2010/C 317/82
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo van Heuckelom (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D.Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, assisted initially by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers, then by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of 14 July 2008 awarding the applicant a single step of classification in grade and of the decision of 19 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr. van Heuckelom’s action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 01/08/2009, p. 63.


title: Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-698/16 (OJ C 441, 28.11.2016)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/57

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-698/16
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016
      )
   (2017/C 006/72)
   The Notice in Case T-698/16 Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB should read as follows:

      Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB
      (Case T-698/16)
      (2016/C 441/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the ECB’s decision dated 11 July 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB’s earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63).


title: Case T-473/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Aer Lingus v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission
   (Case T-473/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 096/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Aer Lingus Ltd;

               4.

               Orders Aer Lingus to pay half of its own costs;

               5.

               Orders Ireland to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Action brought on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas against the European Parliament (Case T-167/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/23
Action brought on 24 May 1997 by Albert Verleysen                      — declare that the applicant is entitled to a review of his
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       initial classification as from his appointment on
                        ( Case T-162/97 )                                   1 November 1992 pursuant to Article 31 ( 2 ) and
                                                                            Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, and to
                           ( 97/C 228/54 )                                  readjustment of his career,
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of these
                                                                            proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Albert Verleysen, residing at Denderleuuw ( Belgium),
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                relied upon in Case T-16/97 (').
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 August 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that he be reclassified
     in the higher grade of his career bracket in accordance           Action brought on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas
     with Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   against the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-167/97 )
— annul the Commission's decision of 3 February 1997
     rejecting the administrative complaint made by the                                           ( 97/C 228/56 )
     applicant against the first of the contested decisions,                            (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Communities on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas,
                                                                       residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
Case T-16/97 I 1 ).                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                       of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the decision not to promote the applicant to
                                                                             grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotions
                                                                             procedure,
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz Talegon against Commission of the European                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                             Communities
                         ( Case T-165/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 228/55 )
                                                                        In the context of the 1996 promotions procedure, the
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)                        appointing authority considered 28 potential promotions
                                                                        from grade C 4 to grade C 3 amongst a total of 186
 An action against the Commission of the European                       officials eligible for promotion, including the applicant.
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 1997                    The applicant, who was not promoted, maintains that the
 by Carlos Gomez de la Cruz Talegon, residing at                        adoption of the contested decision infringed Article 45 of
 Luxembourg, represented by Victor Gomez de la Cruz, of                 the Staff Regulations and breached the principle of
 the Malaga Bar, with an address for service in                         equality of treatment and non-discrimination and the
 Luxembourg c/o Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Marguerite de                  applicant's legitimate rights and interests, in particular his
 Brabant .                                                              interest in being promoted to grade C 3 following his
                                                                        reassignment to the 'Minutes' Division of the Parliament's
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Directorate-General 1 .
 — annul the decision adopted by the Commission                         According to the applicant, the contested decision was
      ( appointing authority) on 30 July 1996 not to                    adopted in breach of the rules governing the promotions
      reclassify the applicant and the decision of the                  procedure . He claims that it is vitiated by a manifest error
      Commission of 3 February 1997 rejecting the                       committed in the course of consideration of the merits of
      complaint made by the applicant against that refusal,             those eligible for promotion to grade C 3 , that it is totally
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 7. 97
unsupported by any statement of reasons and that it was              The contested decisions were therefore arbitrary and
adopted in breach of the second paragraph of Article 25              clearly went beyond the limits of the Council's discretion .
of the Staff Regulations .
Action brought on 30 May 1997 by Daniel Varas Carrion                Action brought on 2 June 1997 by Farine Laziali SpA
          against the Council of the European Union                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-168/97 )                                                  ( Case T-169/97)
                          ( 97/C 228/57)                                                      97/C 228/58 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 May 1997 by Daniel Varas Carrion,                  An action against the Commission of the European
residing in Barcelona ( Spain ), represented by Marianne             Communities was brought before the Court of First
Droinet, of the Brussels Bar.                                        Instance of the European Communities on 2 June 1997 by
                                                                     Farine Laziali SpA, represented by Wilma Viscardini
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Dona, Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Matthias Hardt.
— annul the Council 's decision of 19 December 1996
     ( received on 31 December 1996 ), refusing to admit the
     applicant to the test of Competition ' Consejo/C/374'
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
     ( Spanish-language typist) on the ground that the
     application documents supplied did not demonstrate a
     sufficient level of knowledge of a second Community
     language,                                                       — annul the Commission's decision by which the planned
                                                                         investment for rationalizing plant used in the
                                                                         production of dried medicinal herbs, called 'Project
— annul the Council 's decision of 18 March               1997
                                                                         No 013 ', included in the operational programme
     ( received on 24 March 1997), which confirmed the                   92.CT.IT.05 submitted to the Regione Lazio, was
     decision of 19 December 1996, notwithstanding the                   excluded from the financing provided for by
     applicant's complaint of 14 January 1997,                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 (Articles 173 and 174 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty),
— annul the test which took place on 26 April 1997 and
     therefore order all the candidates to be called again,
     including the applicant,                                        — order the Commission to pay to the applicant
                                                                         compensation for damage under Article 178 and the
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    second subparagraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         in the amount to be quantified by the Court during
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      the proceedings,
The Council refused to admit the applicant to the first test         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
of the Open Competition for Spanish-language typists
( Consejo/C/374 ), on the ground that his application
documents did not show that he had sufficient knowledge
of French .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant maintains that no reasons are stated for the           The applicant, an Italian company based in Ponzano
first contested decision, and that it therefore infringes            Romano and Sant'Oreste, which carries on the activities
Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                        of growing, processing   and marketing fodder plants and of
                                                                     drying the medicinal     herbs obtained when it cuts the
Concerning the second contested decision, the applicant              plants, challenges the   defendant's decision excluding the
maintains that the Secretariat General of the Council                planned investment in    rationalization of plant used in the
wrongly added other conditions to those laid down in the             production of dried medicinal herbs, submitted to the
competition notice . The latter stated merely that                   Regione Lazio, from the financing provided for by
knowledge of a second Community language had to be                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 ( ] ). That contribution was
sufficient. There was no provision that certificates                 intended to be used to carry out a programme of
demonstrating that knowledge had to be enclosed with the             investments in the construction of a new storage
application documents .                                              warehouse and in various infrastructure works .


title: Case C-214/04: Action brought on 19 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/6

         Action brought on 19 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-214/04)
   (2004/C 190/11)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Antonio Aresu, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by retaining up to the present rules which permit the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in fire protection installations beyond the limits and outside the conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Commission claims that the derogations referred to in the Decree of 3 October 2001 of the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of the Territory apply to various cases which are not covered by the derogation laid down in Regulation No 2037/2000 and that therefore the field of application of those derogations is considerably wider than is permitted under the regulation itself. In so far as the Italian provisions authorise the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in fire protection installations in cases not permitted under Regulation 2037/2000, those provisions are inconsistent with Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1


title: Case T-115/99: Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système Européen Promotion 'SEP' against Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants in the present case challenge Article 1(7)(b),             — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 of
second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of                       19 February 1999 in so far as the name Pays d’Auge/Pays
8th February 1999, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89                        d’Auge-Cambremer registers it;
on a code of conduct for computer reservations systems
(CRSs) (1). This article inserts a point (v) in Article 6(1)(b) of        — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
the amended regulation, according to which group of airlines
and/or subscribers is entitled to purchase data for common
processing.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, on the premise that it imposes
on operators of CRSs an obligation to supply Marketing                    Since 1998 the applicant has manufactured and sold sider, in
Information Data transfer (MIDT) only once, to group. of                  particular under the names ‘La Cidraie — grand cru du Pays
airlines having a common interest in the common processing                d’Auge’ and ‘Jacques Toy — grand cru cidre du Pays d’Auge’.
of those data, article 6(1)(b) infringes the principle of pro-            The applicant objects to the contested regulation or the ground
portionality. That is so for two reasons:                                 that its application would prohibit the applicant from selling
                                                                          its cider under the name ‘Pays d’Auge’.
— First, if that provision is to be construed as permitting
     airlines to form groups to purchase MIDT, irrespective of
     the size of the airlines concerned or the number of                  The pleas in law made against the regulation in issue are in
     participants in the group, the measure is excessive and is           two parts:
     not necessary to achieve the aim identified during the
     process leading to the adoption of Article 6(1)(b), namely
                                                                          — as to the form, the procedure which led to the adoption of
     to enable travel agents to join together in groups to
                                                                               Regulation No 378/1999 is invalidated by the fact that the
     purchase MIDT.
                                                                               applicant’s opposition to registration of the name ‘Pays
                                                                               d’Auge’ was not forwarded to the Commission;
— Second, the measure is disproportionate by reason of the
     very serious financial implications it has for CRS operators
     engaged in supplying MIDT at the date of the contested               — as to the merits, the regulation which registers the name
     decision.                                                                 ‘Pays d’Auge’ in respect of sider fails to comply with the
                                                                               conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92
                                                                               in that it applies to a product which has no specific features
The applicants also submit that the obligation to state the                    as regards its recommended method of manufacture and is
reasons on which a measure is based has been infringed.                        produced in such a way as to offer no guarantee to the
                                                                               consumer.
(1) OJ L 40 of 13.2.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against                      Européen Promotion ‘SEP’ against Commission of the
       the Commission of the European Communities                                               European Communities
                         (Case T-114/99)                                                             (Case T-115/99)
                         (1999/C 226/62)                                                            (1999/C 226/63)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 May 1995 by CSR Pampryl, a                     European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
company whose registered office is in La Courneuve, France,               Européen Promotion ‘SEP’, whose registered office is at Saint
represented by Dominique Couturier-Heller, of the Paris Bar,              Vit (France) represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                  Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/36              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.8.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos,
                                                                        established in Vantaa, Finland, represented by Tuomas Saraste,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 8 March 1999                  lawyer, and Jouni Alanen, oikeustieteen lisensiaatti, with an
    (SG - 99 D/1697);                                                   address for service at Asianajotoimisto Asianajotalo ANPR Oy,
                                                                        Stenbäckinkatu 26, FIN-00250 Helsinki.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Annul the Commission’s decision finding that the system
                                                                             of landing charges applied by the Ilmailulaitos infringes
The applicant company contests the decision rejecting both                   Article 86 of the EC Treaty, and
the complaint lodged against Renault France, Renault Nether-
lands and Renault Autocenter concerning the barriers to                 — Order the Commission to pay the Ilmailulaitos’s costs
parallel imports by agents as well as a request for withdrawal               together with any interest for fate payment.
of the exemption by category under Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 for Renault’s distribution contracts.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
                                                                        The Commission in its decision infringed essential procedural
                                                                        requirements contained in Community law, in particular in
— The defendant misapplied the principle of Community
                                                                        Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February
    interest.
                                                                        1962 and Article 4 of Regulation 99/63, by basing its decision
                                                                        on an infringement which was not in the statement of
— The Commission purportedly did not examine thoroughly                 objections it made to the Ilmailulaitos in the case.
    all the matters of fact and law brought to its attention.
    More specifically, the defendant cannot rely on the mere
    fact that the practices which are claimed to he contrary to         In assessing the Commission’s error, regard must be had to the
    the Treaty ceased in order to decide not to take any further        purpose of the statement of objections of providing an
    action, in the absence of any Community interest, on a              undertaking suspected of infringing the rules on competition
    complaint denouncing such practices.                                with all the information which it needs in order to be able to
                                                                        defend itself effectively before the adoption of the Com-
— The applicant claims that in the present case there has               mission’s final decision in the matter. An effective right of
    been misuse of powers. It states in this respect that the           defence, which is a fundamental principle of Community law,
    institutions are bound to observe competition law without           also requires that the Commission formulate its statement of
    taking into account political exigencies.                           objections clearly and unambiguously.
As for delivery deadlines, which according to the Commission            The Commission also infringed essential procedural require-
are technically justified because of the popularity of the              ments by basing — with respect to airports other than
Renault Scenic, the applicant claims that 45 % of the orders it         Helsinki-Vantaa — the assessment of the trace criterion in its
handles are for models other than the Scenic. In any event, the         decision on different facts from those on which it had based
defendant failed to ascertain whether the deadlines in question         its assessment in its statement of objections. The Ilmailulaitos
are discriminatory. There is a rebuttable presumption that              thus had no adequate opportunity to defend itself in this
there is compartmentalisation of the market by the systematic           respect either.
use of deadline extensions as a deterrent against parallel
imports.
                                                                        Action brought on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti
                                                                        Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos
                                                                                munities
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-116/99)                                                         (Case T-118/99)
                        (1999/C 226/64)                                                         (1999/C 226/65)
                  (Language of the case: Finnish)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  13 October 2005  in Case C-73/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Brigitte and Marcus Klein v Rhodos Management Ltd (Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in proceedings regarding tenancies of immoveable property — Time-share in immoveable property)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 October 2005
   in Case C-73/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Brigitte and Marcus Klein v Rhodos Management Ltd (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Jurisdiction in proceedings regarding tenancies of immoveable property - Time-share in immoveable property)
   (2005/C 315/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-73/04, reference for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany), by Decision of 27 January 2004, received at the Court on 17 February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Brigitte and Marcus Klein and Rhodos Management Ltd, the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   On a proper construction of Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, that Article does not apply to a club membership contract which, in return for a membership fee which represents the major part of the total price, allows members to acquire a right to use on a time-share basis immoveable property of a specified type in a specified location and provides for the affiliation of members to a service which enables them to exchange their right of use.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-65/02 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH (formerly doing business as KruppThyssen Stainless GmbH) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between KruppThyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
customary in business circles, Article 7(1)(b) would be robbed          Pleas in law and main arguments:
of its central meaning for the purposes of examination of trade
mark applications and, moreover, the examination would
overlap with Article 7(1)(d).                                           —     Errors of law in the determination of, and the regard had
                                                                              to, the duration of the infringement for which the fine
                                                                              was imposed: the Court of First Instance erroneously
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                          rejected the contention that the infringement was only
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
                                                                              sporadic, although it is undisputed that, from as early as
    (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).
                                                                              February 1994 onwards, the appellant has repeatedly
                                                                              independently fixed its prices for stainless steel flat
                                                                              products. The defendant and the Court of First Instance
                                                                              would have been entitled to assume that prices continued
                                                                              to be influenced by the concerted practices within the
                                                                              meaning of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty after the next
                                                                              time the prices were independently fixed, in March 1994,
Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by ThyssenKrupp                            only if there had been actual evidence of such continued
Stainless GmbH (formerly doing business as KruppThys-                         influence or of continued practices.
sen Stainless GmbH) against the judgment delivered on
13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of
                                                                              Even if it could not be assumed that the infringement was
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                              only sporadic, the Court of First Instance failed to
Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between KruppThyssen Stain-
                                                                              recognise that the protracted length of the administrative
less GmbH and Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Com-
                                                                              procedure worked — unfairly — to the disadvantage of
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                              the appellant, since the Commission did not make clear
                                                                              that it was acting on the presumption of an ongoing
                         (Case C-65/02 P)                                     infringement.
                         (2002/C 109/55)
                                                                        —     Error of law in so far as the initial fixed sum was taken
                                                                              into account more than once in the calculation of the
                                                                              fine: the Court of First Instance wrongly failed to address
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December                       the applicant’s contention that, when applying the prin-
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                   ciple of fixed-sum fines in respect of the applicant’s legal
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and                          relationships, the Commission was entitled to impose
T-47/98 between KruppThyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai                        only a single fine. Instead, the Commission recognised
speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European                         the corporate structure of the group in the non-operative
Communities (1) was brought before the Court of Justice of the                part of its decision, but failed to take it into account in
European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Thyssen-                          the calculation of the fine imposed of the applicant,
Krupp Stainless GmbH, represented by Dr Martin Klusmann,                      thereby breaching the principle of equal treatment.
Rechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Düsseldorf.
                                                                        —     Error of law in the appraisal of the applicant’s co-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   operation in the investigation: finally, the Court of First
                                                                              Instance erroneously held that the Commission was
(1) partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First                    entitled to grant those undertakings involved in the
      Instance of the European Communities, in so far as it                   procedure which co-operated in the investigation to
      dismisses the action brought against the Commission                     exactly the same extent as the applicant, but which
      Decision 98/247/ECSC of 21 January 1998;                                additionally admitted that, in legal terms, the facts notified
                                                                              to the applicant constituted an infringement of Article 65
(2) correct, in so far as it concerns the appellant, the finding              ECSC, a specific additional 30 % reduction in the fine in
      in Article 1 of Decision 98/247/ECSC regarding the                      respect of that admission. In addition to the principle of
      duration of the infringement;                                           protection of sources which emerges from the Com-
                                                                              mission’s notice (2), it is an axiomatic principle of the rule
(3) reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of                  of law that an admission of illegality cannot and must
      Decision 98/247/ECSC appropriately,                                     not be rewarded.
or, alternatively in respect of claims (1) and (2),
      refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a          (1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
      new judgment which complies with the Court’s interpret-           (2) OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4.
      ation of the law;
(4) order the Commission to pay the full costs of the
      proceedings.


title: Case C-194/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Preferential electricity tariff — Finding that there is no aid — Measure amended and extended — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(v) — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-194/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Preferential electricity tariff - Finding that there is no aid - Measure amended and extended - Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(v) - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2011/C 269/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, T. Müller-Ibold and T. Graf, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Salerno, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-332/06 Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v Commission of the European Communities, by which that court dismissed the action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2006 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the extension of the preferential electricity tariff regimes granted to some energy intensive industries in Italy (State Aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06)), in so far as it concerns the electricity tariff for the two plants producing aluminium owned by the applicant in Fusina (Veneto) and Portovesme (Sardinia)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case T-34/15: Action brought on 22 January 2015 — Wolf Oil v OHIM — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/38

         Action brought on 22 January 2015 — Wolf Oil v OHIM — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)
   (Case T-34/15)
   (2015/C 089/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipeda, Lithuania)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘CHEMPIOIL’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 0 76  327

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 1596/2013-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wolf Oil.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-301/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 30 July 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie; other party: I. Oguz

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 30 July 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie; other party: I. Oguz
   (Case C-301/09)
   2009/C 267/61
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Other party: I. Oguz

      Question referred

   Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, taken by the Association Council set up under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that a new restriction, within the terms of that provision, includes a tightening in respect of a provision which entered into force after 1 December 1980, and which constituted a relaxation of the provision which had been in force on 1 December 1980, if that tightening does not amount to a deterioration vis-à-vis the provision which was in force on 1 December 1980?


title: Case F-112/14: Action brought on 17 October 2014  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/47

         Action brought on 17 October 2014 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-112/14)
   (2015/C 026/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority to classify the applicants, in accordance with the new rules on career and promotion applicable after the reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014, in the type of post ‘Senior Administrator in transition’, depriving them, in their opinion, of the opportunity of promotion to grade AD 14, and a declaration that Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions classifying the applicants in the type of post ‘Senior Administrator in transition’;

               —

               declare that Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.