title: Case T-144/99: Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/17
Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of                       — its obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that it
Professional Representatives before the European Patent                       does not explain in what respect, going beyond the
Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European                           principle of comparative advertising authorised by Direc-
                           Communities                                        tive 84/450 as amended by Directive 97/55 (1), the
                                                                              implementation of that principle by the EPI was contrary
                                                                              to Community competition law;
                         (Case T-144/99)
                                                                         — the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 81 thereof,
                                                                              and the rules of law concerning its application, by declaring
                         (1999/C 281/34)                                      the articles of the Code of Conduct in issue, as referred to
                                                                              above, to be contrary to Article 81(1), whereas:
                   (Language of the case: French)                             — first, by amending Directive 84/450 in order to include
                                                                                comparative advertising within its scope, Directive
                                                                                97/55 expressly provided for the right to prohibit such
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                advertising in relation to the activities of professional
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                persons; and
European Communities on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of
Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office
(EPI), established in Munich (Federal Republic of Germany),                   — second, the provisions forming the subject-matter of
represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Claude Mitchell, of the                     the contested decision concern professional conduct
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       obligations which pursue an objective in the public
Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.                              interest, constituting a competition factor in accord-
                                                                                ance with Article 81(1) which is justified by the nature
                                                                                of those provisions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— partially annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 1999              In the alternative, the EPI maintains that, by exempting the
     relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the              two provisions in issue for a transitional period only, in order
     EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) (Article 53 of the EEA                to give the applicant institute time to adapt to the situation by
     Agreement) (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct), in so far as            amending its Code of Conduct, when the conditions for
     it concerns Article 2(b)(1) and (3) and Article 5(c) of the         the application of Article 85(3) are already fully met, the
     EPI Code of Conduct;                                                Commission has infringed Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and
                                                                         Article 8 of Regulation No 17/62.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses
     incurred as a result of these proceedings.
                                                                         (1) Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of
                                                                             6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning
                                                                             misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (OJ L 290 of 23.10.1997, p. 18).
The application contests the decision of the Commission by
which it held that two articles of the Code of Professional
Conduct drawn up by the applicant institute (the EPI), which
was itself set up by the Administrative Council of the European
Patent Organisation (‘the EPO’), are contrary to Article 85 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC). The provisions in issue are
Article 2(b)(1) and (3), relating to comparative advertising, and
Article 5(c), relating to relations between representatives of           Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann &
clients and former representatives of those clients.                     Hansen GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In the contested decision, the Commission takes the view that
those two provisions restrict the freedom of action of members                                    (Case T-155/99)
of the EPI and are designed to restrict competition between
members of the profession. According to the Commission,
those two provisions, one of which prohibits comparative                                          (1999/C 281/35)
advertising and the other of which is liable to impede the
supply of services to former clients of other representatives,
help to crystallise the clientele of each professional representa-                          (Language of the case: German)
tive within each national market, and thus constitute a
restriction of competition which is unnecessary and significant,
since it concerns all professional representatives on the EPO            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
list who are members of the EPI.                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann
                                                                         & Hansen GmbH, of Hamburg, represented by Professor
In support of its arguments, the applicant maintains that the            Hans-Jürgen Rabe, of the Gaedertz partnership, 35 Avenue de
defendant institution has infringed:                                     Tervuren, Brussels.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 76/160/EEC — Quality of bathing water)

text:
26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 247/3
Communities (Agent: T. Millett) and Council of the European                D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Union (Agents: M. Bauer and D. Canga Fano) — Appeal against                Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
the order of the Court of First Instance of the European                   M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
Communities (Third Chamber) of 20 January 1998, Kögler v                   eral; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Court of Justice (T-160/96, [1998] ECR I-A-15 and II-35),                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:
seeking to have that order annulled — the Court of First
Instance of the European communities (Fourth Chamber),                     1.    Declares that:
composed of D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber and
A. La Pergola and H. Rangemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; H. von                      —     by excluding, without proper justification, from the scope
Holstein, Deputy Registrar and subsequently R. Grass, Regis-                           of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975
trar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:                                concerning the quality of bathing water numerous inland
                                                                                bathing areas, and
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                —     by not adopting, within 10 years following notification of
2.    Orders M. Kögler to pay the costs;                                               the directive, the measures needed to ensure that the
                                                                                quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values fixed
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own the                     in accordance with Article 3 of that directive and by not
      costs.                                                                           attaining the results prescribed by it,
                                                                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                        under Article 4(1) of the directive;
                                                                           2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 25 May 2000
in Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
           76/160/EEC — Quality of bathing water)                                                     of 25 May 2000
                          (2000/C 247/04)                                  in Case C-359/98 P: Ca’ Pasta Srl v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community
                                                                           financial aid — Procedure for discontinuing the aid —
                                                                           Suspension of payment of the aid originally granted —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             Actionable measure)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/05)
In Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. de Sousa Fialho and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Kingdom
of Belgium (Agents: initially J. Devadder, then Y. Houyet) —
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water
conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3
of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 con-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
cerning the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1)                                      in the European Court Reports)
within 10 years following the notification of that directive, the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under              In Case C-359/98 P: Ca’ Pasta Srl, established in Padua, Italy,
Article 4 of Directive 76/160/EEC and the third paragraph of               represented by P. Piva, of the Venice Bar, and G. Arendt, of the
Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Article 249 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  at the Chambers of G. Arendt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix — appeal


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-196/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Athinon): Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikinonion Ellados AE (Social policy — Male and female workers — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Directive 75/117/EEC — Equal pay — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment — Temporary part-time posts — Exclusion from appointment as an established member of staff — Calculation of length of service — Burden of proof)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-196/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Athinon): Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikinonion Ellados AE (1)

   (Social policy - Male and female workers - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) - Directive 75/117/EEC - Equal pay - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment - Temporary part-time posts - Exclusion from appointment as an established member of staff - Calculation of length of service - Burden of proof)
   (2005/C 106/01)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-196/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Irinodikio Athinon (Greece), made by decision of 13 May 2002, received at the Court on 27 May 2002, in the proceedings between Vasiliki Nikoloudi and Organismos Tilepikinonion Ellados AE — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Community law, in particular Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, is to be interpreted as meaning that the existence and application of a provision such as Article 24a(2)(a) of the General Staff Regulations of Organismos Tilepikinonion Ellados, under which only female cleaners, and therefore only women, can be taken on under a contract of indefinite duration for part-time work, do not constitute, in themselves, direct discrimination on grounds of sex against women. However, the subsequent exclusion of a possibility of appointment as an established member of staff by reference, ostensibly neutral as to the worker's sex, to a category of workers which, under national rules having the force of law, is composed exclusively of women constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive 76/207. In order for there to be no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, the factor characterising the category to which the excluded worker belongs must be such as to place that worker in a situation that is objectively different, with regard to appointment as an established member of staff, from the situation of those who are eligible to become established.

               2.

               Should the premiss that only part-time female cleaners have been denied the possibility of appointment as an established member of staff prove incorrect, and if a much higher percentage of women than men has been affected by the provisions of the specific collective agreements of 2 November 1987 and 10 May 1991, the exclusion, brought about by those agreements, of the appointment of part-time temporary staff as established staff constitutes indirect discrimination. Such a situation is contrary to Article 3 of Directive 76/207 unless the difference of treatment between these workers and those working full-time is justified by factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case.

               3.

               Where the total exclusion of part-time employment when calculating length of service affects a much higher percentage of female workers than male workers, it constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Directive 76/207, unless that exclusion is attributable to factors which are objectively justified and are unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case. The proportional counting of part-time employment when making that calculation is also contrary to Directive 76/207, unless the employer establishes that it is justified by factors whose objectivity depends in particular on the aim pursued by taking length of service into account and, should it be a question of recognition of experience acquired, on the relationship between the nature of the duties carried out and the experience which performance of those duties brings after a certain number of hours of work have been completed.

               4.

               Where employees plead that the principle of equal treatment has been infringed to their detriment and establish facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, Community law, in particular Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex, is to be interpreted as meaning that it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of that principle.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.


title: Case C-486/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic, Orange, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — State aid — Financial measures for France Télécom — Shareholder loan offer — Public statements by representatives of the French State — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Definition of ‘aid’ — Concept of ‘economic advantage’ — Prudent private investor criterion — Obligation of the General Court to state reasons — Limits of judicial review — Distortion of the decision at issue)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic, Orange, Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-486/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Financial measures for France Télécom - Shareholder loan offer - Public statements by representatives of the French State - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Definition of ‘aid’ - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Prudent private investor criterion - Obligation of the General Court to state reasons - Limits of judicial review - Distortion of the decision at issue))
   (2017/C 030/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and T. Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by J. Bousin, acting as Agents), Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, avocats), Federal Republic of Germany

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case C-139/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2014  — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2014 — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen
   (Case C-139/14)
   2014/C 194/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mineralquelle Zurzach AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a non-alcoholic beverage that consists mainly of water but also has 12 % fruit juices and contains, in addition to sugar, a vitamin mixture which clearly exceeds the vitamin content, in relation to the proportion of juice, of natural fruit juices, to be classified under subheading 2202 10 00 of the Combined Nomenclature?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is such a beverage a fruit juice, diluted with water, under code number 2202 90 10 11 TARIC?

               3.

               If the first two questions are answered in the negative:
               Is such a product to be classified as goods under code number 2202 90 10 10 TARIC?


title: Case T-351/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Somm v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for Community tri-dimensional mark — Shelter for shade — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Lack of distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Somm v OHIM
   (Case T-351/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community tri-dimensional mark - Shelter for shade - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Lack of distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/61)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Somm Srl (San Mauro Torinese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ferro, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 1653/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of a tri-dimensional sign representing a shelter for shade as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Somm Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


C 397/28             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-188/98 (1)
                        (98/C 397/50)                                                        (98/C 397/52)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                 By order of 20 October 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (reference for a          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):                  removal from the register of Case C-188/98: Commission
1. RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft 2. Stadt Nordhorn v.              of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Bundeskartellamt.                                                   Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (1)
                        (98/C 397/51)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-47/98 (1)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of                                    (98/C 397/53)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (reference
for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):               By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Court of
WINGAS GmbH (formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH) v.                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Stadt Detmold.                                                      removal from the register of Case C-47/98: Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           tendering procedure for a feasibility study for the
                                                                    modernisation of a railway junction in Warsaw on the E-
                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    20 line, and of the restricted invitation to tender of
in Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl v. Commission of the                      4 December 1995 for a feasibility study for the
                  European Communities (1)                          modernisation of the Warsaw railway node on the E-20
                                                                    TEN line Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(PHARE programme Ð Decision to annul an invitation to               composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
tender and issue a new invitation to tender Ð Action for            Cooke, Judges; M. Johansson, Legal Secretary, for the
damages Ð Admissibility Ð Damage resulting from the                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
loss suffered by a tenderer, from its loss of profit and from       which it:
                the harm caused to its image)
                        (98/C 397/54)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the action;
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs relating to the
                                                                        claim for damages;
In Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl, a company incorporated
under Italian law, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian
Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples              3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs relating to
Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                        the application for annulment.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Marie-JoseÂ Jonczy and Lucio Gussetti) Ð application, at
the stage ultimately reached in the proceedings, for                (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of the Commission decision,
contained in a letter of 16 November 1995, annulling the


title: Case C-127/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 1 February 2000 in the case of Aktiebolaget Hässle v ratiopharm GmbH

text:
C 163/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesger-                   3. Is the list of grounds of invalidity in Article 15(1) of the
ichtshof by order of that court of 1 February 2000 in the                    Regulation exhaustive?
      case of Aktiebolaget Hässle v ratiopharm GmbH
                                                                             If not:
                         (Case C-127/00)                                     (a) Does it constitute a ground of invalidity that a
                                                                                certificate was granted under the transitional provision
                                                                                in Article 19(1) of the Regulation even though a first
                                                                                authorisation to place the product on the market in
                         (2000/C 163/32)                                          the Community was already granted before the relevant
                                                                                date for the Member State in which the certificate was
                                                                                applied for and granted?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                    (b) In that case is the certificate completely invalid, or
(Federal Court of Justice) of 1 February 2000, which was                          should its duration merely be rectified accordingly?
received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2000, for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the case of Aktiebolaget Hässle v ratiopharm              4. If a breach of the transitional provision in Article 19(1) of
GmbH on the following questions on the interpretation of                     the Regulation does not constitute a ground of invalidity:
Articles 15 and 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92
of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182,                May and must national law provide, as under Article 17(2)
p. 1):                                                                       of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament
                                                                             and of the Council of 23 June 1996 concerning the
                                                                             creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant
1. (a) For application of the transitional provision in Article              protection products (3), for an appeal aimed at rectifying
        19(1) of the Regulation, in so far as that provision                 the duration of the protection certificate for a medicinal
        relates to the ‘first authorisation to place ... on the              product in the event of a breach of the transitional
        market ... in the Community’ before a specified relevant             provision in Article 19(1) of the Regulation?
        date, does that refer exclusively to an authorisation
        within the meaning of Directive 65/65/EEC (1) or
        Directive 81/851/EEC (2) as the case may be, or may              (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20.
        another authorisation granted later (after the relevant          (2) OJ L 317 of 6.11.1981, p. 1.
        date) relating in particular to the prices of the medicinal      (3) OJ L 198 of 8.8.1996, p. 30.
        product also be material in this respect, if
        (aa) without such a further authorisation, for example
             one for price-law purposes, marketing of the
             medicinal product is not permissible under the law
             of the Member State concerned, or
        (bb)without such a further authorisation the medicinal
             product may in principle be marketed in the                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
             Member State concerned, but effective marketing             Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
             is nevertheless not possible, in particular because         28 March 2000 in the appeal concerning Rudolf Resl, Josef
             the sickness funds reimburse the costs of the               Fleckl, Werner Karlinger, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des
             medicinal product only if the further authorisation,        Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission
             in particular for price-law purposes, has been                                     des Landes Salzburg
             granted or a determination of the price eligible for
             reimbursement has been made?
                                                                                (Case C-128/00)
    (b) Is the material authorisation for this purpose a first                                     (2000/C 163/33)
        authorisation in any Member State of the Community
        (as with Articles 8 and 13 of the Regulation) or the
        first authorisation in the Member State for which the            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        grant of the supplementary protection certificate has            European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
        been applied for?                                                tungssenat Salzburg of 28 March 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 4 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         appeal concerning Rudolf Resl, Josef Fleckl, Werner Karlinger,
2. Is there doubt as to the validity of the transitional provision       Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundver-
    in Article 19(1) of the Regulation in so far as it lays down         kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg on the following
    different relevant dates for different Member States?                question:


title: Case T-38/17: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/40

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-38/17) (1)

   (2017/C 293/52)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Action brought on 11 June 1996 by British Steel pLC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-89/96)

text:
   10 . 8 . 96         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 233/ 19
  mutual consent, whereby she was given custody of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
  couple's two children, and responsibility for looking after
  them and managing their assets . In compliance with those
  agreements, the Commission granted her, pursuant to                   — annul in its entirety Commission Decision 96/315/ECSE
                                                                              ('the contested Decision '),
  Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , an additional tax
  abatement equivalent to twice the amount of the allowance
  for each dependent child . Upholding a complaint submitted            — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
  by the applicant's ex-husband , the Commission                             including those of the applicant .
  subsequently decided that he alone was to be given the tax
  abatement in dispute .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  In contesting that decision, the applicant argues, first, that it
  infringed Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , in so far
  as that provision grants a tax abatement ' for each dependent         The applicant is public limited company incorporated in
  child of the person liable'. The applicant explains that, in          England and engaged in the steel industry . It regularly
  accordance with the intention of both parties and as a                distributes within the territory of the Community iron and
  matter of fact, she had been entrusted with sole                      steel products of the kind defined in Annex I to the ECSC
 responsibility for custody of the couple's children, and for          Treaty.
  looking after them and managing their assets, and that
 determination of the maintenance payment — confirmed by               The applicant challenges a Decision which is addressed to
 the national court primarily on the basis of the parties'             Ireland , and in which the Commission declares compatible
 respective salary slips — takes account of the fiscal                 with the common market the grant of £ Irl 38,298 million by
 implications of that decision .                                       way of aid to Irish Steel .
 According to the applicant, the contested decision is also
 vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, in that, having           According to the applicant the contested Decision :
 regard to the financial responsibilities which she in practice
 shoulders, the maintenance payment to which her                       — purports to authorize the grant of State aid to an
 ex-husband has voluntarily agreed amounts to                               individual undertaking, notwithstanding the terms of
 approximately 25 % of the actual expenses incurred for the                 Commission Decision 3855/91 /ECSC . The ' Fifth SAC '
 maintenance and education of the children . Thus it is clear               declared that such aid would be regarded as prohibited .
 that, by comparison with the applicant's contribution to the               If the Commission decides that different measures are
 payment of expenses, her ex-husband's share cannot be                      ' necessary' for the attainment of the objectives of the
 regarded as amounting to 'heavy financial responsibilities'.               Community, it should amend or replace the ' Fifth SAC '
 Also, since the Commission pays the family allowances                      and not take individual decisions . As the ' Fifth SAC ' was
 directly to the applicant, and this does not affect her                    binding and comprehensive until such time as it was
 ex-husband's income, those allowances should not be taken                  amended , it was not open to the Commission to
 into      account  in   order     to  establish   his   financial          circumvent it by adopting individual decisions on the
 responsibilities .                                                         same subject-matter under Article 95 . The contested
                                                                            Decision should therefore be annulled on the ground of
 Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission has                      lack of competence .
 infringed the duty to state reasons .
                                                                       — contains infringements of the ECSC Treaty and of rules
                                                                            of law relating to its application . In particular :
                                                                           — the grant of the present State aid will lead to a
                                                                                distortion of competition, because, contrary to the
                                                                                established case-law of the Court and Commission
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by British Steel pLC                               practice, not only has this aid been authorized
   against the Commission of the European Communities                             without requiring any reduction in capacity, but Irish
                         ( Case T-89/96 )                                         Steel is still permitted to increase its capacity and its
                           ( 96/C 233/33 )                                        production ,
                                                                           — in adopting the contested Decision the Commission
                 (Language of tbe case: English)                                  took into account considerations irrelevant to the
                                                                                test laid down in Article 95 , namely whether the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  grant of aid is 'necessary to attain . . . one of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2 , 3
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1996 by                           and 4 '. In any event, the grant of the aid in question is
British Steel pLC, represented by Mr William Sibree and Mr                        not necessary within the meaning of Article 95 to
Philip Raven, Solicitors of the Supreme Court, Slaughter and                      attain one of the objectives of the ECSC Treaty,
May, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15                     — the contested Decision infringes the principle of
Côte d'Eich, Luxembourg.                                                         non-discrimination,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
    — the contested Decision purports to regularize ex post           various letters dated 3 and 22 April 1996 the defendant
        facto aid which was granted without prior                      institution informed the applicant that it was disposed to
        notification or authorization , thus enabling the             communicate to the complainants the whole of the replies
        recipient of the aid to benefit from early payment in         given by it, save for two exceptions . The present action has
        contravention of the case-law of the Court of                 been brought against the decisions contained in those
        Justice ,                                                     letters .
— the Commission infringed              essential  procurement
    requirements . In particular:
    — the contested Decision is inadequately reasoned ,
    — the Commission failed to initiate the contentious
        procedure as required by Decision 3855/91 /ECSC,              Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart against
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
    — the Commission failed to consult the Consultative                                         ( Case T-91 /96 )
        Committee as required by Articles 19 and 95 of the                                        ( 96/C 233 /35 )
        ECSC Treaty .
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart, residing
                                                                      at Rhode-Saint-Genèse ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Automobiles Peugeot
                                                                      Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the
SA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                      Brussels Bar , with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener .
                        ( Case T-90/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233 /34 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                (Language of tbe case: French)                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                           Conseil/C/360 of 3 October 1995 refusing to admit her
                                                                           to the second part of the written tests in the
An action against the Commission of the European                          competition ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1996 by
Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in Paris ( France ),              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
represented by Xavier De Roux , of the Paris Bar , with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jacques Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe .
                                                                      The applicant states that she was admitted to the written
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          tests in open competition Conseil/C/360 for the constitution
                                                                      of a reserve for future recruitment of French-language
                                                                      secretaries , and that she did in fact take part in the
— annul the four decisions of the Commission of the
                                                                      compulsory written tests held on 17 November 1995 . On
    European Communities of 3 and 22 April 1996 ,                      12 January 1996 she was informed of the decision of the
                                                                      selection board not to admit her to the second part of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                         written tests , on the ground that she had not participated in
                                                                      all the compulsory written tests . In consequence of the
                                                                      complaint lodged by the applicant, the selection board
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   replied that it appeared , following a detailed investigation,
                                                                      that one of the written tests had not been handed in to the
The applicant, a company marketing Peugeot vehicles in                organizers of the competition who were present and that she
Europe , is the object of four complaints by various                  could not therefore be admitted to the practical tests on a
distributors calling in question the compliance with                  PC . It is the latter decision which is contested in the present
                                                                      case .
Community law of the exclusive and selective standard form
contract for the distribution of Peugeot motor vehicles . In
consequence of those complaints , it provided all the                 The applicant observes that it is for the administration to lay
information requested by the Commission , pointing out                down and implement the detailed practical arrangements
that the information in question was covered in its entirety          for the organization of recruitment competitions . Those
by the obligation of professional secrecy . However, in               arrangements must be laid down in compliance with the


title: Case T-637/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Euris Consult v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Public services contract — Tendering procedure — Services of translation into Maltese — Rejection of a tender — Arrangements for communication — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable damage — Lack of urgency)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Euris Consult v Parliament
   (Case T-637/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public services contract - Tendering procedure - Services of translation into Maltese - Rejection of a tender - Arrangements for communication - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable damage - Lack of urgency)
   2012/C 80/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Malta) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and F. Poilvache, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 October 2011 in the tendering procedure (MT/2011/EU) for the provision of translation services into Maltese (OJ S 56 090372) and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 January 2003 in Case C-318/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales, Queen's bench Division): Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier des Dauphins v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Refusal to display advertisements for alcoholic drinks at a sporting event taking place in a Member State whose law allows television advertising for alcoholic drinks but being broadcast on television in another Member State whose law prohibits such advertising — Relevance of the questions for the outcome of the main proceedings)

text:
C 55/2                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 8.3.2003
dangerous substances (OJ 1999 L 329, p. 100), the Court,                     1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-               European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997
chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans                        (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21), and under Article 28 EC, the Court
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                   (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von                 President of the Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;                N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
judgment on 21 January 2003, in which it:                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,
                                                                             in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                             1.     Declares that, by laying down a general prohibition of health-
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;                     related information on the labelling of foodstuffs for general
                                                                                consumption and by subjecting the display of such information
3.     Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.                        to a prior authorisation procedure, the Republic of Austria has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1)
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                          and (2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December
                                                                                1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                                relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
                                                                                foodstuffs, as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997;
                                                                             2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             3.     Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 23 January 2003                                  (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
in Case C-221/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Republic of Austria ( 1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             foodstuffs)
                           (2003/C 55/03)                                                                of 21 January 2003
                    (Language of the case: German)                           in Case C-318/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales, Queen’s
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       bench Division): Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier des Dau-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                phins v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd (1),
                                                                             (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide
In Case C-221/00, Commission of the European Communities                     services — Refusal to display advertisements for alcoholic
(Agent: J. C. Schieferer) v Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi)            drinks at a sporting event taking place in a Member State
supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: C. P. Kristensen):                   whose law allows television advertising for alcoholic drinks
Application for a declaration that, by interpreting and applying             but being broadcast on television in another Member State
Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr                  whose law prohibits such advertising — Relevance of the
mit Lebensmitteln, Verzehrprodukten, Zusatzstoffen, kosme-                         questions for the outcome of the main proceedings)
tischen Mitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen (Lebensmittelge-
setz 1975) (Federal Law on trade in foodstuffs, products                                                   (2003/C 55/04)
intended for human consumption, additives, cosmetic prod-
ucts and consumer goods) of 23 January 1975 as meaning
that health-related information on foodstuffs for general                                          (Language of the case: English)
consumption is prohibited in a general and absolute manner,
and by subjecting the affixing of such information to a prior
authorisation procedure, the Republic of Austria has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and (2) of           In Case C-318/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the                      EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ                pending before that court between Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 55/3
des Dauphins and Newcastle United Football Company Ltd,                      powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23),
on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                   the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
after amendment, Article 49 EC), the Court, composed of:                     J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet and                     C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                            F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Admin-
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                   istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-                 2003, in which it:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                 1.    Annuls Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of
                                                                                the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the High Court of                   concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, by order of                  (LIFE);
28 July 2000 is inadmissible.
                                                                             2.    Declares that the measures for the implementation of Regulation
                                                                                No 1655/2000 already adopted at the time of the present
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.                                                       judgment are not affected by it;
                                                                             3.    Declares that the effects of Article 11(2) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1655/2000 are to be fully maintained until the Parliament
                                                                                and the Council adopt new provisions concerning the committee
                                                                                procedure to which the measures for the implementation of that
                                                                                regulation are subject;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       4.    Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the
                                                                                European Union to pay the costs.
                        of 21 January 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
in Case C-378/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v European Parliament and Council of the European
                              Union ( 1)
(Comitology — Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission — Criteria for choosing                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
between the different procedures for adopting implementing
measures — Effects — Obligation to state reasons —                                                   of 23 January 2003
Annulment in part of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01 (Refer-
       Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE))
                                                                             ence for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
                                                                             Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                          (2003/C 55/05)                                     tungssenat Wien and Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Renate
                                                                                Sterbenz and Paul Dieter Haug (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
                                                                             Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                     foodstuffs)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/06)
In Case C-378/00, Commission of the European Communities                                        (Language of the case: German)
(Agent: D. Maidani) v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
and M. Moore), and Council of the European Union (Agents:                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J.-P. Jacqué and G. Houttuin) supported by United Kingdom of                                    in the European Court Reports)
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
by M. Hoskins): Application for the annulment of Regulation
(EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the                      In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01: References
Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument                  to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger
for the Environment (LIFE) (OJ 2000 L 192, p. 1), in so far as               Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (Austria), the Unabhängiger
it makes the adoption of measures for the implementation of                  Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) and the Verwaltungsgerichts-
the LIFE programme subject to the regulatory procedure under                 hof (Austria) respectively for preliminary rulings in the
Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999                    criminal proceedings pending before those courts against
laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing                  Renate Sterbenz (C-421/00) and Paul Dieter Haug (C-426/00


title: Case T-14/12: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Elliniko Kazino Parnithas v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/21

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Elliniko Kazino Parnithas v Commission
   (Case T-14/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 232/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by Greece in favour of certain Greek casinos (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE.

               3.

               Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-214/16: Action brought on 3 May 2014 — SATA v EUIPO (4600)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/31

         Action brought on 3 May 2014 — SATA v EUIPO (4600)
   (Case T-214/16)
   (2016/C 232/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SATA GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU trade mark ‘4600’ — Application No 13 965 595

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1942/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the rejection of EU trade mark No 13965595;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of the general legal principles of equal treatment and sound administration.


title: Case T-17/06: Action brought on  23 January 2006  — Giant (China) v Council

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/29

         Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Giant (China) v Council
   (Case T-17/06)
   (2006/C 74/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Giant (China) Co., Ltd (Kunshan City, China) [represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer]

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1892/2005 (1) of 14 November 2005 terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of china, insofar as

                           —

                           it rejects the applicant's market economy status (‘MES’) claim;

                           —

                           it violates Article 253 EC inasmuch as it fails to state the reasons for which the applicant's MES claim was rejected; and

                           —

                           it breaches the WTO law by applying post factum market economy criteria to Chinese exporting producers ion some EC Member States; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a limited company incorporated under Chinese law, mainly produces bicycles and parts thereof, exporting to the Community. It contests Regulation 1892/2005 which terminated the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes first of all the same allegations of violation of Council Regulation 384/96 (‘the basic regulation’) and of Article 253 EC it had previously invoked in the context of Case T-372/05 (2).
   The applicant further alleges that the contested Regulation breaches World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) law in that it applies market economy criteria to Chinese exporters in five Member States whose anti-dumping legislation did not provide for such criteria at the time of China's accession to the WTO.

      (1)  OJ L 302, 19/11/2005, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ C 315, 10/12/2005, p. 17.


title: Case T-168/03: Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Grigorios Giannoutsos and Others against the European Parliament

text:
C 184/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
                                                                                Parliament to pay those costs.
The applicants in the present case, seek the annulment of the
Parliament's decision amending the method used for the calcu-
lation of annual travel costs to Greece.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and arguments submitted by the applicants in
support of their action are similar to those put forward by the            The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-
applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                          ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
                                                                           travel expenses to Greece.
(1) OJ 2002 C 247, p. 17.
(2) OJ 2003 C 101, p. 40.                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                           applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101 26.04.03, p. 40.
Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Grigorios Gian-
    noutsos and Others against the European Parliament
                          (Case T-168/03)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux
                                                                                against Commission of the European Communities
                          (2003/C 184/89)
                                                                                (Case T-172/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/90)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                                  (Language of the case: French)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
13 May 2003 by Grigorios Giannoutsos, residing in Luxem-
bourg, and 4 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux,
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
                                                                           Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           address for service in Luxembourg.
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
      annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the             —     annul the Commission decision not to include the appli-
      journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for desti-               cant's name on the list of officials promoted to grade 2
      nations in the Pelopponese;                                                for the 2002 promotion exercise, its decision being
                                                                                apparent from the publication of administrative notice
                                                                                No 9-2002 of 14 August 2002
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from               Pleas in law and main arguments
      Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
      nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;       In support of her application, the applicant argues breach of
                                                                           the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and infringe-
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                 ment of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;                              principle of equal treatment, the principle that officials should
                                                                           have reasonable career prospects and the principle of good
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                 administration and sound management.
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of
      which is sought, together with legal interest;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Joined Cases C-218/96, C-219/96, C-220/96, C-221/96 and C-222/96 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 92/32/EEC, 92/69/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/86/EEC and 93/105/EEC)

text:
No C 54/6             I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC of                    man and the environment of substances notified in
     18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing                   accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ
    protection or improvement in order to support fish life                No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p. 9 ),
    and with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/
     EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of                 — Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October 1993
     shellfish waters, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                           adapting to technical progress Council Directive 91 /
    failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                           157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing
                                                                           certain dangerous substances ( OJ No L 264, 23 . 10 .
2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      1993 , p. 51 ), and
     costs .
                                                                       — Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of 25 November
C ) OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .                                         1993 laying down Annex VII D , containing
                                                                           information required for the technical dossier referred
                                                                           to in Article 12 of the seventh amendment of Council
                                                                           Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 ,
                                                                           p. 21 ),
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       under the EC Treaty, — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                       composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , President of the
                       of 12 December 1996                             Chamber, L. Sevon, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), J. -P.
                                                                       Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
in Joined Cases C-218/96, C-219/96, C-220/96, C-221/96                 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
and C-222/96 Commission of the European Communities                    12 December 1996 , in which it rules :
                  v. Kingdom of Belgium (')
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose                  1 . By not adopting within the prescribed time-limits the
Directives 92/32/EEC, 92/69/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/86/                         laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                      EEC and 93/105/EEC)                                  necessary to comply with:
                             ( 97/C 54/10 )
                                                                           — Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992
                                                                               amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/
                (Language of the case: French)                                 EEC on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions relating
                                                                               to the classification, packaging and labelling of
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 dangerous substances,
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           — Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of 31 July 1992
In Joined Cases C-218/96 , C-219/96 , C-220/96 , C-221 /96                     adapting to technical progress for the seventeenth
and C-222/96 : Commission of the European Communities                          time Council Directive 67/548/EEC,
( Agent : G. zur Hausen, assisted by J. -J. Evrard ), v.
Kingdom of Belgium ( Agents : A.-M . Snyers, Cases C-218/                  — Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993
96 , C-220/96, C-221 /96 and C-222/96 ; and R. Foucart,                        laying down the principles for assessment of risks
Case C-219/96 ) — application for a declaration that, by                       to man and the environment of substances notified
not adopting or not communicating within the prescribed                        in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC,
time-limits the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with :                                      — Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October
                                                                                1993 adapting to technical progress Council
                                                                               Directive      91 /157/EEC     on     batteries      and
— Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992
     amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC                        accumulators        containing   certain    dangerous
                                                                               substances, and
     on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions relating to the classification,
     packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ( OJ                  — Commission Directive 93/105/EC of 25 November
     No L 154, 5 . 6 . 1992 , p. 1 ),                                           1993 laying down Annex VII D, containing
                                                                               information required for the technical dossier
                                                                               referred to in Article 12 of the seventh amendment
— Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of 31 July 1992                               of Council Directive 67/548/EEC,
     adapting to technical progress for the 17th time
     Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 .
     1992 , p. 113 ),                                                      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under Article 3 of Directive 92/32, Article 3
                                                                           of Directive 92/69, Article 8 of Directive 93/67,
— Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993                           Article 7 of Directive 93/86 and Article 2 of Directive
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to                 93 /105 .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 54/7
2 . The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Third Chamber )
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                                               of 9 January 1997
                                                                        in Case C-255/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Consiglio di Stato ): S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas
                                                                                v. Regione Veneto ( 1 )
                                                                        (Aid to promote the extensification of agricultural
                                                                        production — Calculation of reduction in output —
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             Reference period)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                           ( 97/C 54/ 12 )
                        of 9 January 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-143/95 P Commission of the European
Communities v. Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda
                    ( Socurte ) and Others (')
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Appeal — European Social Fund — Time-limit for                                   published in the European Court Reports)
bringing proceedings — Infringement of essential
                   procedural requirements)                             In Case C-255/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                             ( 97/C 54/ 11 )                            of the EEC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato ( Italy ) for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas and
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        Regione Veneto — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on
                                                                        improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ( OJ No
                                                                        L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 ), as amended by Council
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1760/87 of 15 June 1987 ( OJ No
          published in the European Court Reports)                      L 167, 26 . 6 . 1987, p. 1 ), and as both amended by
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1094/88 of 25 April 1988
                                                                        ( OJ No L 106 , 27 . 4 . 1988 , p. 28 ), and of Commission
In Case C-143/95 P : Commission of the European                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988
Communities ( Agents : Francisco de Sousa Fialho and                    laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    promote the extensification of production ( OJ No L 361 ,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     29 . 12 . 1988 , p. 13 ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ),
( First Chamber ) of 7 March 1995 in Joined Cases T-432/                composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 Socurte and Others v.                        Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B.
Commission ( 1995 ) ECR 11-503 , seeking to have that                   Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        9 March 1997 in which it has ruled :
being: Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda ( Socurte ),
Revestimentos de Cortina Lda ( Quavi ), now known as
Estudos e Projectos Lda ( Esprocil ), and Sociedade                     Article 18 (b) (3) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/
Transformadora de Carnes Lda ( Stec ), now known as                     85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of
Estudos e Projectos Lda (J.A.P. ), represented by Carlos                agricultural structures, as amended by Council Regulation
Botelho Moniz and Antonio Magalhães Cardoso, — the                      (EEC) No 1760/87 of 15 June 1987, and as both amended
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                     by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1094/88 of 25 April
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur),                   1988, and Article 4 (1 ) and (2) of Commission Regulation
C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                     (EEC) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988 laying down
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has                 detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to promote the
given a judgment on 9 January 1997, in which it:                        extensification of production must be interpreted as not
                                                                        allowing a Member State, where there has been a drop in
                                                                        output during the intermediate period between the end of
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                              the reference period and the beginning of the period of the
                                                                        undertaking, to make the grant of aid for 'extensification '
                                                                        in any case conditional on output achieved during the
2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities                   intermediate period being reduced, during the period of
      to pay the cost.                                                  the undertaking, by an amount corresponding to at least
                                                                        20% of output during the reference period.
(') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Case C-383/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax legislation — Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-383/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Tax legislation - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)
   2013/C 225/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Breach of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Restriction on freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — National provisions establishing a tax exemption applicable only to interest paid by Belgian banks, excluding that paid by non–resident banks — Discriminatory taxation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court declares that:

               1.

               By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.