title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2004 in Case C-516/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Environment — Waste management — Campolungo (Ascoli Piceno) waste plant — Directive 75/442/EEC amended by Directive 91/156/EEC — Articles 4 and 8)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 16 September 2004
   in Case C-516/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Campolungo (Ascoli Piceno) waste plant - Directive 75/442/EEC amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4 and 8)
   (2005/C 45/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-516/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Amorosi and M. Konstantinidis) against Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) – action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 9 December 2003 – the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, R. Schintgen, J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the waste deposited in the Campolungo waste plant, situated in the commune of Ascoli Piceno (Italy), is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using procedures or methods which are likely to harm the environment, and by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that any holder of waste deposited in that waste plant has it handled by a private or public collector or by an undertaking which carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or B to Council Directive of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, or recovers or disposes of it himself, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.


title: Case T-698/13 P: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Action lodged out of time — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/42

         Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-698/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action lodged out of time - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 409/61
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:161, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2  000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-607/15: Action brought on 27 October 2015 — Yieh United Steel v Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/63

         Action brought on 27 October 2015 — Yieh United Steel v Commission
   (Case T-607/15)
   (2016/C 038/85)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul articles 1 and 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (1)(the ‘Contested Regulation’ or the ‘Definitive Duty Regulation’), in so far as it relates to the Applicant; and

               —

               order that the Commission pays the Applicant’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review Articles 1 and 2 of the Contested Regulation and its conformity with the Basic Regulation and the general principles of European law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation because it unduly refused to consider the applicant’s cost allocation methods, which the applicant used historically and which correspond to internationally recognised accounting practices. Because of this violation, the Commission wrongly refused a deduction of the recycled scrap from the cost of production of the product concerned, thus artificially inflating the normal value in violation of Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(1) of the Basic Regulation because it unduly discarded sales of the product concerned in the ordinary course of trade to an independent domestic customer to determine normal value. The Commission did not sufficiently state the reason of such refusal. Furthermore, assuming the reason of such refusal is merely the fact that these sales were exported after the sale (without the applicant knowing), the criteria the Commission applied is illegal. The Commission should have considered the applicant’s intention regarding the end destination of these sales at the time of the sale. Thus, the Commission violated Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation by rejecting domestic sales simply because they were exported by an independent customer after the sale.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10.


title: Case T-13/01: Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Daniele Riva against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.3.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 95/19
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Cristina Ascatigno                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Battistella against Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                     —     Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September
                                                                                2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
                                                                                28 March 2000 under No 168/2000;
                          (Case T-12/01)
                                                                          —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 95/36)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as though
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 in Case T-11/01 Maschetti v Commission (1).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Cristina
Ascatigno Battistella represented by Bruno Nascimbene and                 (1) Not yet published in the OJ.
Massimo Condinanzi, Avvocati, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September
      2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
      28 March 2000 under No 170/2000;                                    Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Fiorenzo Rizzello
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-14/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2001/C 95/38)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as though
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case T-11/01 Maschetti v Commission (1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) Not yet published in the OJ.                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Fiorenzo
                                                                          Rizzello represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Massimo
                                                                          Condinanzi, Avvocati, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Daniele Riva                               2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
    against Commission of the European Communities                              28 March 2000 under No 167/2000;
                          (Case T-13/01)                                  —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 95/37)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as though
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          in Case T-11/01 Maschetti v Commission (1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1) Not yet published in the OJ.
European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Daniele Riva
represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Massimo Condinanzi,
Avvocati, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-397/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Itzehoe (Germany) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Raiffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG v Gerhild Lukath

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Itzehoe (Germany) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Raiffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG v Gerhild Lukath
   (Case C-397/15)
   (2015/C 320/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Itzehoe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raiffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG

      Defendant: Gerhild Lukath

      Other parties to the proceedings: Rüdiger Boy, Boy Finanzberatung GmbH, Christian Maibaum, Vienna-Life Lebensversicherungs AG, Frank Weber

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the agreement between a bank and a consumer for the granting of credit, which is linked to an agreement to take out life assurance and an agreement for advising on and brokering a capital investment, which in turn serves as security for the credit amount, to be regarded as a contract for the supply of services within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (1)?

               2.

               Is Article 5(2) of the Rome Convention also applicable to cases in which advertising comes and/or contact is made from a county in which the consumer has his main place of residence, although he signs the agreements at his secondary place of residence, if the other party to the agreements or his agent received the consumer’s order in the State of the main place of residence?

      (1)  OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1.


title: Case C-84/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Ezatollah Rahmanian Koushkaki v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Ezatollah Rahmanian Koushkaki v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-84/12)
   2012/C 133/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rahmanian Koushkaki

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               In order for the court to direct the defendant to issue a Schengen visa to the applicant, must the court be satisfied that, pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Visa Code, (1) the applicant intends to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for, or is it sufficient if the court, after examining Article 32(1)(b) of the Visa Code, has no doubts based on special circumstances as to the applicant’s stated intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for?

               2.

               Does the Visa Code establish a non-discretionary right to the issue of a Schengen visa if the entry conditions, in particular those of Article 21(1) of the Visa Code, are satisfied and there are no grounds for refusing the visa pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Visa Code?

               3.

               Does the Visa Code preclude a national provision whereby a foreigner may, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, be issued with a visa for transit through or an intended stay in the territory of the Schengen States of no more than three months within a six-month period from the date of first entry (Schengen visa)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), OJ 2009, L 243, p. 1.


title: Case C-464/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of 15 December 2000 in the case of Primetzhofer Stahl- und Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich

text:
10.3.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/11
       (b) does not ensure that an additional ophthalmological              —    According to Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC,
             test is carried out whenever necessary as a result of               workers are entitled to receive ‘special corrective
             the regular eye and eyesight tests;                                 appliances appropriate for the work concerned’, where
                                                                                this proves necessary following testing and the wearing
                                                                                of normal corrective appliances is not possible. Such a
                                                                                provision is the logical and necessary corollary to rules
       (c)   does not define the conditions for providing the
                                                                                requiring the carrying out of eye and eyesight tests, and
             workers concerned with corrective appliances                        examination by an oculist where necessary, with a view
             appropriate for the work concerned.
                                                                                to offering complete protection of the health and safety
                                                                                of workers at risk.
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            —    However, in Article 55 of Decree-Law 626/94 no pro-
                                                                                vision is made which expressly guarantees such a right.
                                                                                Article 55(5) merely states: ‘expenditure in respect of
                                                                                providing special corrective appliances appropriate for
                                                                                the work concerned is to be borne by the employer’,
                                                                                which is clear, but not sufficient to identify the precise
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                criterion establishing the right of workers to benefit from
                                                                                such provisions.
The Commission finds that the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) insofar as:                (1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
                                                                            (2) Council Directive of 12 June 1989, OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
—      Italian legislation is to be regarded as incompatible with
       Directive 90/270/EEC as regards regular eye and eyesight
       tests for workers who have commenced work with display
       screen equipment. Article 9(1) of the abovementioned
       directive provides that all workers working on display
       screen equipment are entitled to regular eye and eyesight
       tests after commencing display screen work in order to
       prevent visual difficulties which may be due to display
       screen work, as well as other possible illness, connected            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
       with overexposure to radiation emitted by display equip-             Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of
       ment. The workers concerned, therefore, are to be                    15 December 2000 in the case of Primetzhofer Stahl- und
       regarded as workers at risk for the purposes of Directive                    Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich
       89/391. However, according to the wording of Article
       55(2) of Decree Law No 626/94, regular tests to take
       place at least every two years, are made available only to                                     (Case C-464/00)
       two specific classes of worker: those who were initially
       classified as fit, with corrective lenses, for work on display
       equipment and those over 45 years of age. Workers                                               (2001/C 79/21)
       under 45 years of age who were initially passed fit to
       work on video equipment without corrective lenses are
       thus wholly excluded from the protection afforded by                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Article 9(1) of the directive.                                       European Communities by order of 15 December 2000 by the
                                                                            Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich,
                                                                            which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
                                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Primetzhofer
—      However, the Commission would draw attention to the                  Stahl- und Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich on the
       fact that workers excluded by virtue of the Italian                  following questions:
       legislation from the regular eye and eyesight tests pro-
       vided for by Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC are
       in practice excluded also from the ophthalmological                  (a)  Do the rules of a Member State under which the court
       examination provided for by Article 9(2), since usually it                (the independent body) in the review procedure must also
       is the former test which shows signs of eyesight problems.                act of its own motion and determine the course of the
       In any event, even if Article 55(4) of Decree-Law 626/94                  preliminary investigation constitute an infringement of
       mentions the possibility of such an examination, the                      the first half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of
       legislation does not offer any assurance that it will be                  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
       carried out in every case where the normal regular eye                    the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrat-
       and eyesight test shows that further analysis is necessary,               ive provisions relating to the application of review
       thus significantly reducing the level of protection pro-                  procedures to the award of public supply and public
       vided for by the directive itself.                                        works contracts? (1)
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.3.2001
(b) If that question is answered in the negative: Does the first               (c)   a national central bank,
      half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of Council
      Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the                          (d) a statutory body representing its members’ interests,
      coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of review pro-                    (e)   a partially State-controlled undertaking which is
      cedures to the award of public supply and public                               operated for profit?
      works contracts require an interpretation of the national
      legislation to the effect that the court (the independent          2.    If the answer to at least part of the above question is in
      body) clarifies of its own motion, without specific                      the affirmative:
      assertions (and certainly without relevant offers of evi-
      dence) made by one of the parties, whether the invitation                Are the provisions precluding the abovementioned
      to tender in question is not an individual project, but                  national rules directly applicable, in the sense that persons
      merely a part-project and — in the event that the latter is              obliged to disclose data may rely on them to prevent the
      the case — whether the overall project has an estimated                  application of conflicting national rules?
      contract value of more than EUR 5 million, or is such a
      view prohibited precisely because the onus of proof and
      obligation to produce evidence imposed on the party
      constitutes the essential difference between a procedure in
      which both sides are heard and inquisitorial proceedings?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 22 December 2000 by the European
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                         Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 October
                                                                         2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99,
                                                                         T-84/99 and T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others
                                                                                and the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-470/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verfassungsge-                                           (2001/C 79/23)
richtshof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000 in the
case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktge-                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
meinde Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich,                       by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
5. Oesterreichische Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener                        European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and
Neustadt, 7. Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luft-                   T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others and the European
                           verkehrs-AG                                   Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 December 2000 by the Euro-
                                                                         pean Parliament, represented by A. Caiola and G. Ricci, acting
                         (Case C-465/00)                                 as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (2001/C 79/22)                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         26 October 2000 in Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 Carlo
European Communities by order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                      Ripa di Meana and Leoluca Orlando and the European
hof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000, received at the                     Parliament;
Court Registry on 28 December 2000 for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer             2.    in consequence, declare the applications of the said
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktgemein-                     applicants at first instance inadmissible and unfounded,
de Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich, 5. Oesterreichi-                and
sche Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener Neustadt, 7. Austrian
Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG on the following              3.    order the applicants at first instance to pay the whole of
questions:                                                                     the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                               Instance and the Court of Justice.
1.    Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
      on data protection, to be interpreted as precluding
      national rules which require a State body to collect and           Pleas in law and main arguments
      pass on data on income for the purpose of publishing the
      names and income of employees of:                                  The European Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in
                                                                         support of its appeal, two of which relate to admissibility and
      (a)   a regional or local authority,                               the third to the substance, the last being subdivided into
                                                                         various parts and supported by a number of legal arguments.
      (b) a broadcasting organisation governed by public law,            Its grounds of appeal are as follows:


title: Case F-112/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Trentea v FRA (Civil service — FRA staff — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/29

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Trentea v FRA
   (Case F-112/10) (1)

   (Civil service - FRA staff - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Rejection of an application)
   2013/C 38/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cornelia Trentea (Vienna, Austria) (represented by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — First, the claim for annulment of the defendant’s decisions rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of administrative assistant in the field of Finance and Procurement and appointing another candidate to that post. Secondly, the claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Ms Trentea must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 43.


title: Case C-293/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case of Infostrada S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione economica

text:
13.10.2001            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                     expressly authorised, and also in with regard to compliance
Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et écono-                  with the principle of equal treatment? (1)’
mique) by judgment of that court of 17 July 2001 in the
case of Receveur Principal des Douanes Françaises de
Villepinte against Société Tang Frères, subrogated to the             (1) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
                   rights of Derruder et Cie
                        (Case C-290/01)
                       (2001/C 289/24)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di pace
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation             di Casale Monferrato by order of 16 July 2001 in the case
(Court of Cassation), Chambre commerciale, financière et              of Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. v A.S.L. No 21
économique (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)              — Dipartimento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti
of 17 July 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on                      e Nutrizione, Casale Monferrato (AL)
23 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Receveur
Principal des Douanes Françaises de Villepinte against Société                                (Case C-295/01)
Tang Frères, subrogated to the rights of Derruder et Cie.
The Cour de Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et
économique) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary                                   (2001/C 289/26)
ruling on the following question:
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
‘On a proper construction of Article 70(1) of the Community           European Communities by order of 16 July 2001 by the
Customs Code, where a representative of the declarant is              Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato (Magistrate’s Court,
present when the customs authorities takes a sample of the            Casale Monferrato) which was received at the Court Registry
goods and he does not challenge the representativeness of that        on 25 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
sample, is the declarant no longer entitled to challenge the          Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. A.S.L. No 21 — Diparti-
representativeness of that sample before the Tribunal hearing         mento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione,
the application for payment of the additional import levies           Casale Monferrato (AL), on the following questions:
considered by the Customs authorities to be due?’
                                                                      1.   On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(5) of Directive
                                                                           2000/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                           Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the
                                                                           laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                           presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, with reference
                                                                           to Article 1 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (2) of 25 July
                                                                           1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions of the Member States
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                     concerning liability for defective products, is the indi-
Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case                   cation on the label of the period within which the
of Infostrada S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del                     foodstuff must be consumed solely a matter for the
        Bilancio e della Programmazione economica                          producer himself under his sole responsibility?
                        (Case C-293/01)                               2.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does
                                                                           Community law prohibit Member States from unilaterally
                                                                           imposing on foodstuff producers the obligation to indi-
                       (2001/C 289/25)                                     cate on the label an expiry date for a product for which
                                                                           Community law makes no provision?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato               3.   If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, can the
(Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the Court                  national court disapply the provisions of national law
Registry on 23 July 2001, in the case of Infostrada S.p.A.                 which conflict with Community legislation on the points
against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programma-              referred to in the previous questions?
zione economica on the following question:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
‘Does Directive 97/13/EC permit the Member States to require          (2) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.
solely those undertakings holding a licence or authorisation to
carry on telecommunications activities to make compulsory
financial payments, other than and in addition to those


C 21/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   24.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-308/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-461/02 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/58)                                                       (2004/C 21/61)
By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of          By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-308/02: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-461/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                    European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-48/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/59)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/62)
By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 26 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-342/02:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            from the register of Case C-48/03: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-370/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-190/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/63)
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-370/02: Commission of the                By order of 29 September 2003 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-190/03: Portuguese Republic v
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-268/12: Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Suwaid v Conseil

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/29

         Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Suwaid v Conseil
   (Case T-268/12)
   2012/C 243/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Joseph Suwaid (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 7, of Section A, of Annex I to Council implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 87, p. 103);

               —

               Annul paragraph 7, of Section A, of Annex I to Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 266/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 87, p. 45);

               —

               Failing that, declare the contested decision and regulation inapplicable to the applicant and order the removal of his name and personal data from the list of persons subject to EU sanctions;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs and in particular all charges, fees and disbursements incurred by the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           infringement of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees and violation of Article 21(2) of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP and of Article 32(2) of Council Regulation No 36/2012 since the contested measures were not notified to the applicant and neither was he sent any evidence or serious indications to justify his inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           a manifest error of assessment since the applicant is not involved in the Syrian regime’s policy;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           infringement of the rights of defence, the principle of a fair trail, and the principle of effective judicial protection, in so far as the Council has not responded to the applicant’s request, and has therefore not explained why the applicant’s name was added to the sanctions’ lists, neither produced the evidence justifying his inclusion in these lists, nor offered him the opportunity of being heard orally, before and after, the disputed restrictive measures had been adopted;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           infringement of the duty to state reasons, in so far as the Council merely used an affirmative and vague wording in the contested decision and regulation, without providing detailed justification, when adopting the restrictive measures against the applicant;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council is at fault in deliberately failing to mention in the contested acts fundamental rights and principles granted under EU law in the European Union. In this connection the applicant further stresses that the Council has adopted the contested acts on the basis of Article 215 TFUE, which provides no ‘democratic safeguards’.


title: Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV against the Council of the European Union (Case T-41/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 108/23
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Communities on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands ), represented by W.
                                                                        Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the Amsterdam and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Loesch, 1 1 Rue
This case is related to the judgment of the Court of First              Goethe .
Instance of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-480/93
and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills NV and Others v.
Commission of the European Communities [ 1995] ECR II                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
2305 . The Commission has introduced new safeguard
measures on account of persisting difficulties on the
market in rice, which the applicant is now challenging.                 — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97 of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                         17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
those adduced in the abovementioned cases .
                                                                            respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            countries and territories ('),
(') OJ No L 5 , 9 . 1 . 1997, p . 24 .
                                                                        — order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
     Mills NV against the Council of the European Union                 By Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97, the Council repealed
                           ( Case T-4 1/97)                             Commission Regulation ( EC) No 21 /97, yet nevertheless
                             ( 97/C 108/46 )
                                                                        adopted the same substantive provisions . The pleas in law
                                                                        and the main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                        T-26/97 Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                          European Communities, in which annulment is sought of
                                                                        Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              O OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .


title: Case C-283/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-607/11: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/9

         Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-607/11: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission
   (Case C-283/13 P)
   2013/C 215/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France (represented by: F. Brunet, E. Paroche, avocats, E. Bitton, advocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Order in so far as it declared that there was no need to adjudicate on Henkel’s head of claim of the action seeking the annulment of the contested decision before the General Court (paragraph 1 of the operative part of the Order);

               —

               Rue that Henkel’s action before the General Court is not devoid of purpose and is admissible, and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the appropriate facts;

               —

               Annul the Order in so far as it ordered Henkel to pay its own costs and to bear the Commission costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures in case T-607/11R (paragraph 4 of the operative part of the Order), and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal contains four pleas, by which the Appellants dispute the General Court's conclusion that they did not have an interest in pursuing their appeal before the General Court against the contested decision. The General Court indeed wrongly ruled that the contested decision became devoid of purpose following the ADLC's decision in which the ADLC considered that the transmission of the documents was not necessary in order to guarantee the respect of the Appellants’ rights of defense and that the documents were not relevant for the analysis of the case before the ADLC.
   On the contrary, the Appellants claim that they retained a legal interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court because they need to rely on the documents in the French proceedings in order to prove that (i) the facts sanctioned in Case COMP/39.579 are the same or are at the very least closely related to the facts prosecuted in the French proceedings, which has a bearing on the Applicants’ leniency status in France; and (ii) Henkel’s insistence to be authorized to use the documents in the French proceedings should not be viewed as a leniency applicant’s lack of cooperation justifying a fine reduction of 25 % instead of 30 %, as the ADLC judged, but should be viewed as the exercise of a legitimate right and interest, namely, the exercise of the rights of defense.
   This appeal is divided into four pleas:

               —

               First, the General Court distorted the facts because it erroneously held that there was no other procedural step following the ADLC's decision, in which the documents could be reviewed, if the contested decision was annulled and the documents were transferred to the ADLC;

               —

               Second, the General Court distorted the facts by misinterpreting the real purpose of the request for the transmission of the documents, when it held that the purpose of the request was only to enable the ADLC to examine the documents, while its main purpose was to enable Henkel to exercise its rights of defense by discussing the documents in the French proceedings;

               —

               Third, the Order is vitiated by a lack of reasoning because the General Court considered that Henkel had no interest in bringing proceedings without reviewing the arguments put forward by Henkel;

               —

               Fourth, the General Court committed an error of law by failing to examine whether Henkel did not retain an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court so as to avoid a repetition of an illegal act.

         For each of these reasons, the Appellants respectfully request the Court to annul the Order.


title: Case F-33/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC
   (Case F-33/15) (1)

   (2016/C 118/49)
   Language of the case: French
   The single Judge has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.


title: Case C-670/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA
   (Case C-670/11)
   2012/C 89/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Defendant: Société Vinifrance SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where it is apparent that a producer who received Community storage aid for concentrated grape must in return for concluding a storage contract with the national intervention agency acquired from a fictional or non-existing company the grape must which he then had concentrated under his responsibility before storing it, can he be regarded as having the capacity of ‘owner’ of the concentrated grape must for the purposes of Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983? (1) Is Article 17 of that regulation applicable where the storage contract concluded with the national intervention agency contains a particularly serious flaw, relating in particular to the fact that the company which concluded the contract with the national intervention agency cannot be regarded as the owner of the stored products?

               2.

               Where a sectoral regulation, such as Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987, (2) establishes a mechanism for Community aid without also laying down a system of sanctions in the event of a breach of its provisions, must Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (3) be applied in the event of such a breach?

               3.

               Where an economic operator has failed to fulfil the obligations defined by a sectoral Community regulation, such as Regulation No 1059/83, and to satisfy the conditions which that regulation lays down for entitlement to Community aid and where that sectoral regulation provides, as does Article 17 of the abovementioned regulation, for a system of measures or sanctions, does that system apply to the exclusion of any other system provided for in European Union law, even where the breach in question prejudices the financial interests of the European Union? Or, conversely, is the system of measures and administrative sanctions provided for in Regulation No 2988/95 alone applicable in the event of such a breach? Or are both regulations applicable?

               4.

               If the sectoral regulation and Regulation No 2988/95 are both applicable, how must their provisions be combined for the purpose of determining the measures and sanctions to be implemented?

               5.

               Where an economic operator has committed a number of breaches of European Union law and where some of those breaches fall within the scope of the system of measures or sanctions of a sectoral regulation, while others constitute irregularities within the meaning of Regulation No 2988/95, must the latter regulation alone be applied?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (OJ 1983 L 116, p. 77).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-69/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Cellnex Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-541/13, Abertis Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/17

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Cellnex Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-541/13, Abertis Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I v Commission

   (Case C-69/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Cellnex Telecom S.A., formerly Abertis Telecom S.A., and Retevisión I, S.A. (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Forms of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

               —

               order the European Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to various measures adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

      First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU and of Protocol (No 26) TFEU on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

   In particular, the action emphasises that the General Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

               —

               it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

               —

               it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

               —

               its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

               —

               it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).


title: Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic against Council of the European Union (Case C-149/96)

text:
 10 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 233/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                 Chambers, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                        of 14 May 1996                                Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
                                                                      Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, FI . Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
in Case C-301 /94: Air Inter v. Commission of the European            and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R.
                        Communities ( 1 )                             Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 May 1996 , the
(Actions brought before the Court ofJustice and the Court             operative part of which is as follows :
of First Instance for annulment of the same measure —
Jurisdiction declined by the Court of First Instance —
Discontinuance of the action brought before the Court of              1 . Case C-301 /94 is referred to the Court of First
                                                                          Instance:
Justice — Jurisdiction of the Court ofJustice to determine
the action brought by an individual — Referred to the Court
                        of First Instance)                            2.  the costs are reserved.
                          ( 96/C 233/01 )
                                                                      0 ) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
                 (Language of tbe case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic
           published in the European Court Reports)                             against Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C- 1 49/96 )
                                                                                96/C 233/02 )
In Case C-301 /94 : Air Inter, a public limited company
governed by French law, whose seat is at Paray Vieille Poste,         An action against the Council of the European Union was
represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an         brought before the Court of Justice on 3 May 1996 by the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  Portuguese Republic , represented by Dr Luis Fernandes and
Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue , against Commission of the                  Dr Carlos Botelho Moniz, acting as Agents, with an address
European Communities ( Agents : Rolf Wägenbaur and                    for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33
Lucio Gussetti ), supported by TAT European Airlines ,                Allée Scheffer .
whose seat is at Tours ( France ), represented by Antoine
Winckler, of the Paris Bar, and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             The applicant claims that the Court should:
of Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich, and by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent:                — annul the Council Decision of 26 February 1996 i 1 )
John E. Collins , of the Treasury Solicitor's Department ) —              'concerning the conclusion of Memoranda of
application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission                      Understanding between the European Community and
Decision 94/29 1 /EC ( notified under reference C(94 ) 637                the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and between the
final ) on a procedure relating to the application of Council             European Community and the Republic of India on
Regulation ( EEC) No 2408/92 [Case VII/AMA/IV/93 —                        arrangements in the area of market access for textile
TAT — Paris ( Orly)-Marseille and Paris ( Orly)-Toulouse]                 products ',
( OJ 1994 L 127, p . 32 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.              — order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs
Edward , J. P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of                    in their entirety .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 8 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        thereof apply retroactively to past situations ,
                                                                           without there being any justified need to derogate
— Breach of fundamental rules and principles of the                        from the general principle that legal provisions
    Community legal order, namely :                                        operate only as regards the future ,
   — the principle that legal provisions must be made                  — the principle of economic and social cohesion, in so
        public : the contested Decision and the Memoranda                  far as a legal regime has been approved which ,
        of Understanding approved by it have not been                      according to the Council's own analysis as set out in
        published in the Official Journal of the European                  the preamble to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 852/95
        Communities even though they change the                            of 10 April 1995 on the grant of financial assistance
        conditions contained in earlier legislative measures              to Portugal for a specific programme for the
        approved by the Council which were duly published                 modernization of the Portuguese textile and clothing
        in the Official Journal and contain legislative                    industry ( 4 ), aggravates inequalities and jeopardizes
        conditions which directly affect economic agents ,                the    economic       and    social  cohesion   of     the
                                                                          Community,
   — the principle of transparency : as well as not having
        been published — the only way of ensuring that the             — the principle of equal treatment for economic agents :
        conditions concerned come to the notice of all the
                                                                          the contested Decision involves an unequal sharing
        interested parties — the contested measure approves               of the burdens resulting from alteration of the
        Memoranda of Understanding drawn up in obscure                    timetable for opening up the Community market to
        and defective terms which prevent immediate                       international competition laid down in the ATC and
        apprehension by an ordinary reader of their                       in Regulation ( EC ) No 3030/93 , as amended in
        implications,                                                     1994 ; that unequal sharing of the burdens derives
                                                                          specifically from the double penalization of
   — the principle of sincere cooperation in relations                    producers in the cotton sector as compared with
        between the Community and the Member States : the                 producers in the wool sector, in that they, in contrast
        approval of the contested measure breaches the                    to the position of producers in the wool sector, are
       terms of the commitment unanimously approved by                    exposed to increased competition in the Community
       the Council regarding the conditions for signature of              market, without any compensatory opening up of
       the Final Act of the 'Uruguay Round ' and annexed                  the Indian and Pakistani markets, which is available
       agreements, in particular the 'Agreement on textiles               only to the producers in the wool sector.
       and clothing' ('ATC ')( 2 ); the breach of that
       commitment results , specifically in non-observance
       of the conditions under which Portugal gave its             — Breach of fundamental rules arrd principles of the World
       consent to signature of the Final Act recording                Trade Organization, namely :
       conclusion of the negotiations with India and
       Pakistan regarding access to the markets in question           — the publicity requirement laid down in GATT and
       in respect of textiles and clothing .                              the ATC : the agreements approved by the contested
                                                                          Decision were not properly made public , in
   — the principle of the protection of legitimate                        particular in an official publication , the only way of
       expectations : the adoption of the contested Decision             ensuring that they come to the notice of the
       alters, and substantially undermines, the legislative              remaining Contracting Parties and the economic
       framework — which was the result of long and                       agents affected by the conditions concerned ,
       complex negotiations — in which a timetable and
       quantities were agreed upon for the purpose of
       opening up the Community market to international               — the rules on the consolidation of duties , in particular
       competition during the transitional period of 10                  Article II of GATT: pursuant to part 2 of the
       years laid down in the ATC and in Council                         Memorandum of Understanding negotiated with
       Regulation ( EC ) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on                India the latter country may, as it wishes , reintroduce
       common rules for imports of certain textile products              specific alternative duties in respect of products
       from third countries ( 3 ), as amended in 1994 to                 covered by measures for the consolidation of duties
       guarantee its compatibility with the ATC conditions;              and determine the level of such duties by reference to
       that unpredictable change in the conditions of                    the prices charged by Community exporters,
       competition on the Community market adversely                     discriminating between them ,
       affects the circumstances in which economic agents
       are proceeding with implementation of the                      — the Agreement on import licensing procedures : in
       restructuring measures which the Council itself                   breach of Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of that Agreement, the
       considers necessary, affecting its effectiveness and              system of ' special import licences ' applied in India
       causing serious harm to economic agents,                          makes the import into that country of Community
                                                                         textile products conditional upon the purchase, from
   — the principle that legal provisions should not operate              the Indian exporters, of import licences which the
       retroactively: the Memoranda of Understanding                     Indian Government has granted them and which
       approved by the contested Decision make the effects               thev may freely trade in on the market,
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 233 / 3
     — the principle that there must be a balance between                 argument put forward by the Luxembourg authorities, the
         the rights and obligations of the parties : in addition          sending of commercial samples free of charge does in fact
         to the concessions embodied in the ATC conditions,               constitute an operation covered by the Sixth Directive , in
         the Community has made a significant number of                   respect of which Article 5 ( 6 ) of that Directive lays down
         additional concessions in exchange for the measures              special arrangements consisting in an exemption
         for opening up the Indian and Pakistani markets                  accompanied by a refund of the input tax paid by the trader
         incorporated in the Memoranda of Understanding.                  concerned . Moreover, the position adopted by Luxembourg
         Furthermore , the measures for opening up those                  is inconsistent, inasmuch as it subjects to VAT imports of
         markets are extremely uncertain and liable to be                 commercial samples provided free of charge whilst enabling
         reversed .                                                       the tax thus paid to be deducted by taxable persons in
                                                                          Luxembourg .
(')  Not yet published in the Official Journal .
(2)  OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 50 .
(■') OJ No L 275 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                         (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
(4)  OJ No L 86 , 1995 , p . 10 .
Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                           Action brought on 10 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic
                             Luxembourg                                                 against the European Commission
                          ( Case C-152/96 )
                                                                                ( Case C-159/96 )
                            ( 96/C 233 /03 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/04 )
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       An action against the European Commission was brought
Communities on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the                        before the Court of Justice on 10 May 1996 by the
European Communities, represented by Hélène Michard                       Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Luis Fernandes and
and Enrico Traversa , acting as Agents , with an address for              Maria Lui'sa Duarte , acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée
Cruz , of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg .                  Scheffer .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should :
( a ) declare that, by introducing and applying national rules
      operating in such a way that supplies of samples such as            — declare void the Commission's practice of applying
      specimen discs or books, which are exempt for                           ' exceptional flexibility' measures in connection with the
      domestic       transactions    and     in  the    context   of
                                                                              administration of quantitative limits on the import by
      intra-Community supplies under Articles 5 ( 6 ) and                     the European Community of textile products and
      28c ( B ) ( a ) respectively of the Sixth Council VAT                   clothing from non-member countries and, specifically,
      Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the                          the decision adopted by the Commission following the
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States
                                                                              meeting of the Textile Committee of 6 March 1996 on
      relating to turnover taxes — common system of value                     textile products from the People's Republic of China ,
      added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( 1 ), as amended ,
      cannot qualify for deduction of input value added tax,
      and by making imports of those goods subject to VAT,                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
      contrary to the provisions of Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the
      Sixth VAT Directive , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive;
( b ) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                      — Manifest abuse by the Commission of its powers for the
      costs .                                                                 implementation of international agreements on trade in
                                                                              textile products and clothing : the ' exceptional flexiblity'
                                                                              measures, applied after full use has been made of all the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           mechanisms provided for in the Community legislation
                                                                              and the bilateral agreements between the European
Infringement of the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive                     Community and supplier countries for flexible
( 77/388/EEC ) referred to in the claims : contrary to the                    observance of quantitative limits, cannot be regarded as


title: Case T-24/05: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Alliance One International and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Equal treatment)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Alliance One International and Others v Commission
   (Case T-24/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Equal treatment)
   2010/C 346/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. (Danville, Virginia, United States); Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc. (Wilson, North Carolina, United States) and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd, (Vaduz, Liechtenstein), (represented initially by M. Odriozola Alén, M. Marañon Hermoso and A. Emch, and subsequently by M. Odriozola Alén, M. Barrantes Díaz and A. João Vide, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) in so far as it relates to Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd.;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc. and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco to bear two-thirds of their own costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to bear one-third of its own costs and to pay one-third of those incurred by the applicants.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-426/10: Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/37

         Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA v Commission
   (Case T-426/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/68
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel;

               —

               or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision that is the subject of these proceedings is the same as that challenged in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal v Commission.
   The applicant specifically alleges:

               —

               misapplication of Article 101 TFEU so far as concerns the attribution of liability to MRT by reason of the alleged infringement of that article given that, on the one hand, it was not MRT but TYCSA (PSC) that was responsible for the supposed participation of TYCSA S.L. in the conduct described in the decision and, on the other, TYCSA S.L. did not form part of an economic entity with GSW/TYCSA. There are, therefore, no grounds for attributing to MRT any liability for the conduct of TYCSA S.L. and TYCSA PSC.

               —

               commission of errors of fact and of law in assessing the conduct at issue, for the European Commission erred when it considered that all the agreements and meetings, taken as a whole, which took place in various Member States at different times, with different participants and different aims, constituted a single continuous infringement contrary to Article 101 TFEU. Moreover, the agreements identified do not amount to a coherent whole intended to attain a single aim;

               —

               alternatively, the applicant seeks annulment or reduction of the fine for failure to observe the principles of proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactive effect and legal certainty, because the guidelines of 1998 were not applied in the computing of the fines, certain mitigating circumstances were not taken into account and because of infringement of the right to a fair hearing and lack of reasoning.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011 in Case E-1/11 — Dr A (Free movement of persons — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Protection of public health — Non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               11.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 307/22

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 15 December 2011
   in Case E-1/11
   Dr A
   (Free movement of persons — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Protection of public health — Non-discrimination — Proportionality)
   2012/C 307/08
   In Case E-1/11, Dr A — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Statens helsepersonellnemnd (Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel), concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC and other EEA law, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

               —

               In principle, Directive 2005/36/EC precludes the authorities of EEA States from applying national rules providing for a right to deny an authorisation as a medical doctor to a migrant applicant from another EEA State who fulfils the requirements under the Directive for a right to mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

               —

               However, an EEA State may make an authorisation conditional upon the applicant having a knowledge of languages necessary for practising the profession on its territory.

               —

               Moreover, an EEA State may suspend or withdraw an authorisation to pursue the profession of a medical doctor based on information concerning the personal aptitude of a migrant doctor relating to the professional qualification other than language skills, such as the ones in question, only if such requirements are objectively justified and proportionate to achieve the objective of protecting public health and if the same information would also entail a suspension or withdrawal of authorisation for a national doctor. If such grounds for suspension or withdrawal are available to the competent authorities at the time of assessment, the authorisation may be denied.


title: Case C-80/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(1) — EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme — Free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Validity — Principle of sound administration — Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal — Use of data in the ‘BREF’ for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal — Meaning of ‘similar products’ — Reference installations — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie
   (Case C-80/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(1) - EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Validity - Principle of sound administration - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Use of data in the ‘BREF’ for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal - Meaning of ‘similar products’ - Reference installations - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 309/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine SASU

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the questions referred has revealed nothing that could affect the validity of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/1

         2010/C 209/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

      OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010

      OJ C 134, 22.5.2010

      OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

      OJ C 100, 17.4.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-530/12 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2012 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10: National Lottery Commission v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/36

         Appeal brought on 21 November 2012 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10: National Lottery Commission v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-530/12 P)
   2013/C 26/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, F. Mattina, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: National Lottery Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Judgment under Appeal,

               —

               Order the National Lottery Commission (Applicant before the General Court) to bear the costs incurred by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Office raises three pleas in law, namely (i) the violation of Article 76(1) CTMR (1), (ii) the breach of OHIM’s right to be heard and (iii) the manifest inconsistency and distortion of facts affecting the Judgment under Appeal.
   The first plea is divided in two limbs. On the one hand, the General Court infringed Article 76(1) CTMR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in relation to Article 53(2) CTMR and Rule 37 CTMIR (2) in the Elio Fiorucci Judgment, to the extent that it relied on provisions of national law, namely Article 2704 of the Italian Civil Code, which had not been invoked by the parties and which therefore did not form part of the dispute before the Board. On the other, the General Court infringed Article 76(1) CTMR to the extent that it relied on national jurisprudence, namely the above mentioned ruling No 13912 of 14 June 2007 by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione referred to at paragraph 32 of the Judgment under Appeal, which had not been invoked by the parties and which did not form part of the dispute before the Board.
   The second plea concerns the breach of OHIM’s right to be heard, to the extent that the Office was not given the opportunity to comment on procedural and substantive aspects relating to the ruling of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione. Had the Office been given this opportunity, it cannot be excluded that the reasoning and conclusion of the General Court would have been different.
   The third plea concerns the manifest inconsistency and the distortion of facts affecting the reasoning and conclusion of the General Court. The Office considers that the General Court misread and distorted the analysis of the Board as well as the National Lottery Commission’s own arguments and failed to appreciate that the Board applied the correct legal standard, under Italian law, in finding that the National Lottery Commission had not adduced proof that the date of the post office stamp affixed to the 1986 Agreement was not conclusive.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 303, p. 1


title: Case T-373/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2009 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Raw tobacco — Obligation to state reasons — Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-373/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Raw tobacco - Obligation to state reasons - Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999)
   2009/C 205/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/579/EC of 20 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 199, p. 84), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sector of raw tobacco.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.