title: Case T-525/14: Action brought on 13 July 2014 — Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (XKING)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/51

         Action brought on 13 July 2014 — Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (XKING)
   (Case T-525/14)
   2014/C 303/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin (Clermont-Ferrand, France) (represented by: L. Carlini, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hannover, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2014 given in Case R 1522/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘XKING’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 44  821

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trademarks Nos 5 2 93  782 and 5 5 60  396, national marks an international registrations

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) CTMR


title: Case C-506/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE v European Commission (Appeal — Contract granting Community financial assistance for a project in the field of medical collaboration — Commission decision to recover in part an advance payment made — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE v European Commission
   (Case C-506/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Contract granting Community financial assistance for a project in the field of medical collaboration - Commission decision to recover in part an advance payment made - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 363/03)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (represented by: E. Tzannini, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent, and E. Petritsi, dikigoros)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 13 December 1995 in Case T-85/94 (122): Commission of the European Communities v. Eugénio Branco Lda (European Social Fund - Reduction in financial assistance initially granted - Statement of reasons - Proceedings seeking to have a default judgment set aside)

text:
No C 31 / 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs.                              Commission's decision of 13 January 1994 refusing the
                                                                         applicant financial support under the 1993 Thermie
t 1 ) OJ No C 172 , 23 . 6 . 1993 and OJ No C 209 , 3 . 8 . 1993 .       programme and for a direction to the Council to take a new
                                                                         decision — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
                                                                         composed of H. Kirschner, acting as President,
                                                                         A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 13 December 1995 , in which it :
                         ( Third Chamber)                                1 . dismisses the action ;
                     of 13 December 1995
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
in Case T-85/94 ( 122 ): Commission of the European
           Communities v. Eugénio Branco Lda ( 1 )                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
(European Social Fund — Reduction in financial assistance
initially granted — Statement of reasons — Proceedings
         seeking to have a default judgment set aside)
                             ( 96/C 31 /41
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                 of 14 December 1995
                                                                         in Case T-72/94 : Komninos Diamantaras v. Commission of
In Case T-85/94 ( 122 ): Commission of the European                                         the European Communities ( 1 )
Communities ( Agents : Francisco de Sousa Fialho and
Horstpeter Kreppel ) v. Eugenio Branco Lda , having its                  (Officials — Expatriation allowance — No habitual
registered office in Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior,             residence in the State in which the official is employed —
of the Bar of Vila Nova de Gaia , with an address for service            Article 4 (1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder,                                                      officials)
6 Rue Heine — application for the setting aside of the                                                ( 96/C 31 /43 )
judgment given by default by the Court of First Instance on
12 January 1995 in Case T-85/94 Branco v. Commission                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
[ 1995 ] ECR 11-45 — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as President,                 In Case T-72/94 : Komninos Diamantaras, an official of the
C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has              Commission of the European Communities, residing in
given a judgment on 13 December 1995 , in which it:                      Brussels, represented by Athanassios D. Damis and Nikos
                                                                         E. Stavropoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
 1 . dismisses the Commission 's application to have the                 service in Luxembourg, care of Emmanuel Kaïlis, 14 Rue
      judgment of 12 January 1995 set aside;                             Julien Vasque, Gasperich, v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) — application,
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              first, for the annulment of the decision of the Commission,
                                                                         communicated to the applicant by administrative note dated
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                       22 February 1993 , refusing him the expatriation allowance,
                                                                         and, second, for an order requiring the Commission to pay
                                                                         the said allowance from the date of the applicant's entry into
                                                                         the service of the Commission — the Court of First Instance
                                                                         ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 R. Schintgen and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                     of 13 December 1995                                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in
                                                                         which it :
in Case T-109/94: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
Betriebs KG v. Commission of the European                                 1 . annuls the decision of the Commission, communicated
                           Communities C )                                      by note of 22 February 1 993 , refusing the applicant the
 (Financial support in the energy sector — Thermie                              expatriation allowance;
programme — Obligation to state reasons — Opinion ofthe
        committee — Right to a hearing — Discretion)                     2 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums
                                                                                corresponding to that allowance from 1 November
                              { 96/C 31 /42 )
                                                                                1 992 , less the payments already made to him by way of
                                                                                expatriation allowance, together with default interest at
                (Language of the case: German)                                  the annual rate of 8% from the dates when those sums
                                                                                respectively fell due until actual payment thereof;
 In Case T-109/94 : Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co .
 Betriebs KG, established at Groothusen-Krummhörn                         3 . orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
 ( Germany ), represented by Professor Detlef Schumacher,
 Bremen, and Benno Grunewald, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen v.                     f 1 ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Jürgen
 Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the


title: Case C-318/99: Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 314/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.10.1999
Appeal brought on 11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     — annul the contested decision (1);
European Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areaco-
va S.A. and 30 others and the Council of the European                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-301/99 P)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (1999/C 314/07)                                1. The Commission maintains in the contested decision that
                                                                            the obligation to asses the aid in the light of an approval
An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third                previously given cannot apply where, as in the present
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                      case, that approval is accompanied by the reservation of a
Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areacova S.A. and 30                    right to examine individual cases involving the application
others and the Council of the European Union and the                        of the general scheme.
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  In reality, the fact that the letter approving the national
11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented                  plans for the sector concerned reserved the right to
by Antonio Creus Carreras of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva                     examine the measures to be taken to implement those
Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the                      plans and requested notification of those measures does
Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas                 not mean that, in carrying out the subsequent assessments,
Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.                           the Commission was entitled to depart from the con-
                                                                            clusions previously reached by it, by evaluating the
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 measures in question as individual grants of aid and
                                                                            applying new parameters which differed from those used
(1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of                 at the time when the sectoral plans were approved.
     First Instance in Case T-12/96 on account of all or some
     of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal         2. The Commission stases that a substantial number of the
     consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,             measures examined were not in conformity with the
     either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case             sectoral plans, on the grounds that some of them did not
     or by referring the matter back to the Court of First                  fall within the types of intervention provided for by the
     Instance;                                                              national sectoral plans, that some grants of aid were not
                                                                            provided for by a specific intervention plan, and that
(2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court                others, although provided for by sectoral plans, did not
     of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,               pursue any of the policy objectives described in general
     and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward            terms in the national sectoral plans and did not lay down
     in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially               any detailed rules for carrying on activities supplementing,
     upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first                or in substitution for, the production of sugar.
     instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
                                                                            On the basis of Article 46 of Regulation No 1785/81 (2)
                                                                            and Article 4 of Regulation No 1254/89 (3), the conformity
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             of the grants of aid-with the sectoral plans is, in essence,
                                                                            to be assessed in the light of the extent to which they
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      correspond to the objectives and aims pursued as a whole
Case C-300/99 P.                                                            by those plans.
                                                                            The Commission has totally failed to state its position
                                                                            regarding the general compatibility of the initiatives adopt-
                                                                            ed with the objectives and aims pursued as a whole by
                                                                            the sectoral plans; it has merely raised the objections
                                                                            summarised above and/or examined the scope of the
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic                    measures in terms of the Community guidelines concern-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        ing aid. This constitutes a further defect in the contested
                                                                            decision, either because it infringes the Community rules
                                                                            or because it amounts to an inadequate statement of
                         (Case C-318/99)                                    reasons.
                         (1999/C 314/08)                                3. The Commission’s infringement of the rules governing the
                                                                            assessment of the aid in question and its fundamental
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   failure to evaluate the general compatibility of the measures
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                referred to above with the objectives and aims pursued as
Communities on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic,                      a whole by the sectoral plans undoubtedly influenced the
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by                 decision to carry out an ‘in depth’ examination of the
Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address                     measures taken, resulting in an incorrect approach which
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue                     ultimately had a negative effect on the conclusions arrived
Marie-Adelaïde.                                                             at by the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- 30.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 314/5
4. The Commission’s decision determines the element of aid             Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
     by applying the Community reference rate prevailing at            mission of the European Communities against the
     the date on which the grants of aid were disbursed. The                                 Kingdom of Belgium
     rate indicated by the Commission corresponds to that
     specified for the repayment of illegal aid in Communi-                                     (Case C-337/99)
     cation 97/C/273/03 from the Commission to the Member
     States.
                                                                                (1999/C 314/10)
     That rate cannot be applied retroactively to the period
     which elapsed between the point in time at which the aid          An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     was granted and the entry into force of the above                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     mentioned rules, since it is contrary to the principle of         10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
     legal certainty and the principle of the protection of            Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its Legal
     legitimate expectations.                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 236 of 7.9.1999, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 126 of 9.5.1989, p. 1.                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Article 4a(4) of Directive 90/388/EEC as amended by
                                                                           Directive 96/19/EC (1), alternatively by failing to communi-
Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission                       cate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium
of the European Communities against the French Republic                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and
                                                                           under the Treaty establishing the European Community;
                         (Case C-331/99)
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                         (1999/C 314/09)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September            Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities;                    according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result
represented by Hans Støvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Olivier       to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the         addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in        laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner           in the present case expired on 11 January 1997 without the
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            the Commission’s application.
— Declare that, by adopting and keeping in force of
     Article 1(f) of Decree No 77-469 of 28 April 1977, the            (1) OJ L 74 of 22.3.1996, p. 13.
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC (1);
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
The list of items of information laid down in Article 6(1) of          mission of the European Communities against the
Directive 76/768/EEC is exhaustive, and therefore the Directive                              Kingdom of Belgium
does not permit national rules requiring information to be
given on the quality and quantity of the substances mentioned                                   (Case C-338/99)
on the packaging, in advertising or in the name of the cosmetic
products covered by the Directive.                                                              (1999/C 314/11)
(1) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    products (OJ L 262 of 27 September 1976, p. 169), as amended,      10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
    with regard to Article 6, by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of       Communities, represented by Léna Ström, Legal Adviser, and
    21 December 1988 (OJ L 382 of 31 December 1988, p. 46).
                                                                       Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of 7 November 1996 in the case of Louisette Cordelle against Office National des Pensions (Case C-366/96)

text:
No C 26 /6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 .  . 97
       before the entry into force of the Regulation to the                   on the approximation of the laws of the Member
       common organization of the market and are not                           States relating to the labelling, presentation and
       caused by a lack of care on the part of the traders                    advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
       concerned.                                                             consumer (!), if he puts foodstuffs on the market in
                                                                              the Federal Republic of Germany which are labelled in
2 . The EC Treaty does not authorize national courts to                       Italian, French or English ?
       order provisional measures in proceedings for the
      grant of interim relief until such time as the                     2 . If not, does the trader satisfy the requirements of
       Commission has adopted an act with legal effect to                     Article 14 of Council Directive 79/ 112/EEC at least if
      deal, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation                       he places a supplementary sign in his shop at the
       (EEC) No 404/93 , with cases of hardship affecting                     location of the goods in question, containing the
      traders .
                                                                              prescribed particulars in German ?
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovratt
Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of                         by order of that court of 22 November 1996 in the case of
7 November 1996 in the case of Louisette Cordelle                                      Anders Sjoberg v. Public Prosecutor
                against Office National des Pensions                                               ( Case C-387/96)
                           ( Case C-366/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/11 )
                              ( 97/C 26/09 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Svea Hovratt
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                      ( Svea Court of Appeal ) of 22 November 1996, which was
Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 7 November 1996,                  received at the Court Registry on 27 November 1996, for
received at the Court Registry on 21 November 1996, for                  a preliminary ruling in the case of Anders Sjoberg v.
a preliminary ruling in the case of Louisette Cordelle                   Public Prosecutor on the following questions:
against Office National des Pensions on the following
question:
                                                                         1 . Is the derogation contained in Article 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
Having regard to the benefits paid in accordance with                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December
French law by the Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie                        1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
Nord Picardie and to the retirement pension payable                           relating to road transport ( ! ) applicable to the services
under Belgian law, is the rule preventing the overlapping                     run by Stockholm Lan Council using SL Buss AB ?
of benefits laid down by Article 52 of the Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 applicable in the light of the                          2 . According to Article 14 ( 5 ), drivers on services
Community rules ?                                                             mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) must carry an extract
                                                                              from the duty roster and a copy of the service
                                                                              timetable. Is it sufficient for the extract from the duty
                                                                              roster to cover only the journeys made on the day in
                                                                              question ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12. 1985 , p. 1 .
Aachen by order of that court of 6 November 1996 in the
administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef
                                 Goerres
                           ( Case C-385 /96 )
                              ( 97/C 26/ 10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   tungsgericht by order of that court of 25 September 1996
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht                      in the case of Aher-Waggon GmbH against the Federal
Aachen ( Aachen Local Court) of 6 November 1996 ,                                               Republic of Germany
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November                                            ( Case C-389/96 )
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative                                                  ( 97/C 26/ 12 )
penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres on the
following questions:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
1.    Does a trader act in accordance with Article 14 of                 the European Communities by order of the Bundes
      Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978                   verwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court) of


title: Case C-198/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2009 — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2009 — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-198/09)
   2009/C 233/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IFB Stroder Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

      Question(s) referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question. That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any. On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing ‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?


title: Case T-100/17: Action brought on 14 February 2017 — BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Action brought on 14 February 2017 — BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission
   (Case T-100/17)
   (2017/C 129/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: BTB Holding Investments SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Duferco Participations Holding SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and M. Favart, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul Article 1(a), (b) and (d) and Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favor of Duferco;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, in respect of the first measure, namely the transfer by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding (FSIH) of a 49,9 % interest in Duferco US to Duferco Industrial Investment.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging errors of law and of assessment in respect of the market economy investor criterion and of the condition of the existence of an advantage set out in Article 107(1) TFEU and of a breach of the obligation to state reasons. That plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging errors of law and infringement of the market economy investor principle and of the burden of proof inasmuch as the Commission conflated the applicability and the application of the market economy investor criterion;

                           —

                           second part, alleging failure to state reasons, lack of care and breach of the duty of sound administration, as well as infringement of the market economy investor principle and Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission failed to carry out an overall assessment of the market economy investor criterion in order to demonstrate the existence of an advantage.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and of assessment by the Commission, in that it failed to take account of all the relevant factors, did not acknowledge the economic rationality of the transaction and did not take account of the essential arguments relating to the profitability of the transaction in assessing the market economy investor criterion, thus disregarding the market economy investor principle, the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU and the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU. That plea is divided into three parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging failure to take account of all the relevant factors;

                           —

                           second part, alleging failure to take account of the economic rationality of the transaction;

                           —

                           third part, alleging failure to state reasons, as well as infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the market economy investor criterion in that the Commission did not take account of the profitability of FSIH’s investment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and assessment, breach of the principles of due diligence and sound administration, of the market economy investor criterion, of the conditions relating to the existence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and of the obligation to state reasons, inasmuch as the Commission did not properly evaluate FSIH’s participation in Duferco US in quantifying the amount of the alleged aid. That plea is divided into five parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging inappropriate reference to Duferco US’s own funds;

                           —

                           second part, alleging that the enterprise value was incorrectly taken into account without the company’s debts being deducted;

                           —

                           third part, alleging the taking into account of the results of the 2006 financial year only;

                           —

                           fourth part, alleging the application of an arbitrary multiple which is too high;

                           —

                           fifth part, alleging arbitrary rejection of almost all of KPMG’s report of 28 May 2014.

         Only BTB Holding Investments SA then relies on three pleas in law, relating to the second measure, namely the sale by FSIH of a 25 % holding in Duferco Participations Holding Limited to Bolmat Holding Limited.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and assessment and disregard for the principle of the market economy investor, the burden of proof, the condition of the existence of an advantage referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons referred to in Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission incorrectly applied the criterion of the market economy investor;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and assessment in that the Commission did not take account of essential information submitted by the parties, thus disregarding the principle of the market economy investor, the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU, the duty of diligence and the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of assessment in quantifying the amount of the alleged aid, in breach of the principles of sound administration and of the market economy investor and of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU.

         BTB Holding Investments SA then relies on two pleas in law in so far as it concerns the fourth measure, namely the loan to Ultima Partners Limited.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment of the facts and errors of law in that the Commission rejects the comparative approach in breach of the principle of the market economy investor, of Article 107(1) TFEU, as regards the existence of an advantage, of the obligation to state reasons and of the general principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment of the facts and errors of law in determining the reference rate, leading to the incorrect application of the market economy investor criterion and infringement of the condition of the existence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. That plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging that the Commission wrongly awarded a BB rating to Ultima Partners Limited in breach of the general principle of sound administration and of the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU;

                           —

                           second part, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the classification of the security rights granted to FSIH in breach of the general principles of sound administration and of the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case T-699/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Parliament v Meyrl (Appeal — Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Contested decision annulled at first instance — Dismissal — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of power)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Parliament v Meyrl
   (Case T-699/16) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Contested decision annulled at first instance - Dismissal - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Abuse of power))
   (2017/C 283/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Sonja Meyrl (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15, EU:F:2016:157), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Ms Sonja Meyrl before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-147/15;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;

               4.

               Orders Ms Meyrl to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance, including those of the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


title: Case C-130/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 March 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 March 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited
   (Case C-130/15)
   (2015/C 190/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: National Exhibition Centre Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the exemption from VAT in Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-2/95 Sparekassernes Datacenter v Skatteministeriet (ECLI:EU:C: 1997:278; [1997] ECR I-3017), what are the relevant principles to be applied for determining whether or not a service has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[s] changes in the legal and financial situation’ within the meaning of paragraph 66 of that judgment? In particular:

                           1.1.

                           Is the exemption applicable to a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, which does not involve the taxpayer debiting or crediting any accounts over which it has control, but which is, where a transfer of funds results, the cause of a transfer of funds made by an independent financial institution?

                           1.2.

                           In a case where payment is made by credit or debit card, does the answer to Question 1.1 depend on whether the service provider itself obtains authorisation codes directly from the cardholder's bank, or alternatively obtains those codes via its merchant acquirer bank?

                           1.3.

                           What factors distinguish (a) a service which consists in the provision of financial information without which a payment would not be made but which does not fall within the exemption (such as in Case C-350/10 Nordea Pankki Suomi (ECLI:EU:C:2011:532; [2011] ECR I-7359), from (b) a data handling service which functionally has the effect of transferring funds and which the Court of Justice has identified as therefore being capable of falling within the exemption (such as in SDC at paragraph 66)?

               2.

               What are the relevant principles to be applied for determining whether or not a service such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case falls within the scope of the ‘debt collection’ exclusion from the exemption in Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive? In particular, if a service of processing payment by a particular method (e.g. debit or credit card) would, pursuant to the principles in Case C-175/09 Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v AXA UK plc (ECLI:EU:C:2010:646; [2010] ECR I-10701), constitute ‘debt collection’ in circumstances where the supply of that service was to the person to whom that payment was due (i.e. the person receiving the payment), will that service also constitute ‘debt collection’' in circumstances where the supply of that service is to the person from whom the payment is due (i.e. the person making the payment)? Further, in the circumstances of this case, does a ‘debt’ even exist to be ‘collected’?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-121/02: Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 131/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
       27 February 1998 which amended Directive 91/271/                   Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of
       EEC with respect specifically to certain requirements              the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       established in Annex I thereto;                                                              Luxembourg
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                              (Case C-120/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
In order for Article 3(1) of the directive to be properly                 ties on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
implemented, collecting systems must exist for urban waste                Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and
water which enters ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of                Joelle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Article 5(1) of the directive. Also, in order for Article 5(2) to         Luxembourg.
be properly implemented, more stringent secondary treatment
is required for urban waste water before its discharge into
‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive — by 31 December 1998 at the latest for agglomer-
ations with a population equivalent (‘p.e.’) of more than                 —     declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
10 000.                                                                         regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                                order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
                                                                                EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
The Bay of Elefsina was classified as a ‘sensitive area’ by Joint               for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
Ministerial Decision 19661/1982 of 2 August 1999. It is not                     to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
disputed that the overall population of the area of Thriasio                    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Pedio exceeds 10 000 inhabitants. It is also accepted that the                  directive;
area’s waste water is discharged into the Bay of Elefsina, which
has been defined as a ‘sensitive area’ since 1999.                        —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Consequently, the Greek authorities were obliged, under
Article 3(1) of the directive, to ensure that there was a collecting      Pleas in law and main arguments
system for that area’s urban waste water by 31 December 1998
at the latest. Nevertheless, as the letter of 8 October 2001              The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
from the Greek Permanent Representation to the European                   2000 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Union also makes clear, such a system does not exist today.               the measures required.
Article 5(2) of the directive obliges the Member States, by               (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
31 December 1998 at the latest, to subject urban waste water
entering collecting systems which is from agglomerations with
a p.e. exceeding 10 000 to more stringent secondary treatment
before its discharge into sensitive areas.
It is not in dispute that today urban waste water from the area           Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of
of Thriasio Pedio is discharged without treatment into an area            the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
which has been classified as ‘sensitive’ by the joint ministerial                                   Luxembourg
decision of 2 August 1999, in breach of Article 5(2) of the
directive.                                                                                (Case C-121/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/19)
The Greek authorities do not dispute the absence of a treatment
system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio.
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
(2) OJ L 67 of 7.3.1998, p. 29.                                           ties on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen and Hendrik
                                                                          van Lier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 131/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
(a)   declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
      comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of                                         (Case C-122/02)
      Justice on 16 December 1999 in the case of Commission
      v Luxembourg (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the                               (2002/C 131/20)
      EC Treaty;
(b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
      Commission a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros per day for           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
      each day that it fails to comply with the aforementioned           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      obligations, running from the date of notification of the          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
      judgment, that being the date of commencement of its               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      non-compliance with its obligations in the present case;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
(c)   order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                               order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
                                                                               EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
                                                                               for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
                                                                               to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                               directive;
                                                                         —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Although Article 228 EC does not indicate the period of time
allowed to a Member State to comply with its obligations, the
fact remains that compliance with a judgment delivered against
is must be commenced forthwith and completed as rapidly as               Pleas in law and main arguments
possible. In the present case, all the provisions and measures
necessary in order for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to
bring its legislation into conformity with the Court’s judgment          The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
should have been adopted and brought into force long ago; at             2000 but the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the
the time when the Commission issued its reasoned opinion,                measures required.
over a year had already elapsed since delivery of the judgment
of the Court.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
In the Commission’s view, a periodic penalty of 9 000 euros
per day is appropriate, having regard to the seriousness and
duration of the non-compliance and the need to impose an
effective penalty. The Commission has calculated the amount
of the periodic penalty which it was required to indicate to             Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of
the Court by using the calculation method defined in its                  the European Communities against the French Republic
communication of 8 January 1997 (2). It has applied a weight-
ing of 10 to take account of the seriousness of the non-
compliance, and a weighting of 1.8 in respect of the duration                                    (Case C-129/02)
thereof.
                                                                                (2002/C 131/21)
(1) Case C-138/99, OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                         2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Joelle Adda, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eugène Kimman against the European Commission (Case T-116/97)

text:
No C 212/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant assembles bicycles in France under its own              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
brand name ' Starway' and under the brand names of its                in Case T-16/97 P ). '
customers for bicycles made to order.
                                                                       1 OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
This action is for the annulment of Article 2 of Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 of 10 January 1997 extending
the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
( EEC ) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from
the People's Republic of China, in so far as it applies to            Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman
imports by the applicant.                                                           against the European Commission
                                                                                ( Case T-l 16/97 )
The applicant considers that the Council has infringed
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/56 )
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 by extending the anti-dumping duty                                   (Language of the case: French)
applicable to imports of bicycles to imports of parts of
bicycles without the conditions in Article 13 (2 ) of that            An action against the European Commission was brought
regulation, and particularly Article 13 (2 ) ( b ) thereof,           before the Court of First Instance of the European
being fulfilled. The Council wrongly concluded that                   Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman,
bicycle parts originating in China imported by the                    residing in Riga ( Latvia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
applicant during the period of the investigation constituted          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
 assembled product.                                                    Rue de Cessange .
The applicant maintains, moreover, that, contrary to                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Article 190 of the Treaty, the contested regulation is not
 supported by an adequate statement of reasons, in that the           — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996
 grounds relied on to justify the extension of the anti                   rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
 dumping duty to the imports of bicycle parts by the                       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of
 applicant bear no logical relation to the conclusion they                 the Staff Regulations,
 are alleged to support.
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                           expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne                       proceedings.
                against the European Commission
                         ( Case T-l 15/97)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                           ( 97/C 212/55 )
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       in Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
                  (Language of the case: French)
  An action against the European Commission was brought                (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
  before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne,
  residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the
  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche against
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-128/97 )
  — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996                                                      97/C 212/57
       rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of                        (Language of the case: French)
       the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
  — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
       adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                    Communities on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche, residing
       expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
       proceedings .                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .


title: Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against the European Parliament (Case T-223/97)

text:
C 318/26               EN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
— in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the             Staff Regulations, which is a clear provision requiring no
     remission of those duties;                                         clarification .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                In adopting the contested decision, the appointing
                                                                        authority applied criteria for granting leave which remain
                                                                        shrouded in mystery, the legal justification of which has
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     not been explained . In so doing, it also infringed Article 25
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-2 16/97 (').
(') See page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens against
                                                                        the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-222/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/52 )
Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against
              the Council of the European Union                                         (Language of the case: German)
                         ( Case T-219/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/51 )                              An action against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Communities on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens,
                                                                        of Aschendorf/Moor ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                        represented by Burkhard Josef Remmers, Rechtsanwalt,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 Papenburg ( Germany ), with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance on 25 July                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk & Prum, 13a
1997 by Anita Brems, resident in Relegem ( Belgium ),                   Avenue Guillaume .
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson                 The applicant claims that the Court should order the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                              defendants to pay to the applicant damages amounting to
                                                                        DM 69 503,40, together with 8 % interest from 1 October
                                                                        1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Council's decisions refusing to allow her the
     entire period from 24 May to 8 June 1996 as sick                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     leave,                                                             those in the other milk quota cases.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against
                                                                                the European Parliament
The application challenges the legality of the refusal to                                       ( Case T-223/97)
allow as sick-leave the entire period of the applicant's
absence from 24 May to 8 June 1996 .                                                              ( 97/C 318/53 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
According to the applicant, in refusing her sick-leave
covering her entire absence, the appointing authority
breached the principles set out in Article 59 of the Staff              An action against the European Parliament was brought
Regulations as clarified in the case-law of the Court of                before the Court of First Instance of the European
Justice and the Court of First Instance .                               Communities on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman, a freelance
                                                                        interpreter, resident at Zurich ( Switzerland ), represented
                                                                        by G. Van der Wal, a Member of the Orde van Advocaten
The    conclusion     of    the   heads   of  administration   of       at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme
1 February 1996 concerning grant of the second half of                  Court), Barents & Krans Advocaten Notarissen, Brussels,
special leave for a thermal cure is illegal, inasmuch as it             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 59 of the            Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue .
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              there is no valid legal basis for imposing Community
                                                                         tax. As a result, there is a duty to repay the amounts
                                                                         unduly paid. The defendant has acted contrary to
— annul or at least declare invalid the decision contained               Community law, in particular the Protocol on
     in the defendant's letter of 30 April 1997 refusing to              Privileges and Immunities, legislation implementing
     repay the Community tax which the applicant has                     that Protocol and Article 212 of the EC Treaty
     paid since 1989,                                                    by deciding to withhold Community tax from the
                                                                         earnings of freelance interpreters, such as the
                                                                         applicant, working for it;
— declare that there is no valid legal basis for imposing
     Community tax in the case of the applicant, who
     works for the defendant as a freelance interpreter, and        3 . the decision, irrespective of its form, by which the
     that the withholding of Community tax from his                      Parliament laid down that freelance interpreters should
     earnings is invalid and unlawful,                                   be charged Community tax is invalid for want of a
                                                                         valid legal basis. In so far as that decision purports to
                                                                         be the basis for charging Community tax on the
— in so far as is necessary, declare invalid the European                applicant's earnings and for refusing to repay him the
     Parliament's decision subjecting the earnings of                    tax, the applicant asks the Court to declare that
                                                                         decision invalid or at least to declare that no reliance
     freelance interpreters to Community tax and Article 8
     of the Agreement with the AIIC,                                     can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant ( objection of
                                                                         illegality, Article 184 of the EC Treaty );
— order that the Community tax paid by the applicant                4. Article 8 of the Agreement with the AIIC, which forms
     since 1 January 1989 be repaid together with interest               an integral part of the agreements concluded by the
     at 8 % or at the applicable legal rate,                             applicant with the defendant, is void or at least
                                                                         invalid . Hence the Court should declare that no
                                                                         reliance can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant since
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 it lacks any legal basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 5 . Article 8 and the procedure for repayment contained
                                                                         in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement with the AIIC, as
                                                                         introduced as from 1984, are also in breach of the
The case is concerned with the imposition of Community                   principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
tax on the earnings of freelance interpreters from their
work for Community institutions, more specifically the
work performed by the applicant for the European
Parliament.
Since the applicant — a Netherlands national — is                   Action brough on 29 July 1997 by Isabel Martinez del
resident in Switzerland, all his earnings are subject to            Peral Cagigal against the Commission of the European
Swiss income tax. Since 1984 Community tax has been                                             Communities
withheld from his earnings as a freelance interpreter of the                                 ( Case T-224/97)
European Parliament, resulting in that income being
subject to double taxation .                                                                   ( 97/C 318/54 )
The defendant's decision contained in the letter of 30 April                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1997 refusing to grant the applicant's claim to repayment
of Community tax since 1989 and maintaining the
imposition of Community tax in future should be annulled
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
or at least declared invalid on the following grounds :
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1997
                                                                    by Isabel Martinez del Peral Cagigal, residing at Brussels,
                                                                    represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 1 . the defendant's reliance on Council Regulation ( EEC )          Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
      No 260/68 and on the Protocol on Privileges and               address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040
      Immunities is to no avail, since the applicant is not an      Brussels .
      official or other servant of the • Community and,
      accordingly, reference thereto cannot serve as the basis
      for refusing repayment;                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the defendant's refusal to repay the Community tax               1 . annul the Commission's decision refusing to reclassify
      paid by the applicant since 1989 is unlawful since                  the applicant in another step;


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2004 in Case C-470/02 P: Union européenne de radio-télévision (UER) against Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Agreements — Joint acquisition of television rights for international sporting events — Access of third parties to those rights — Article 81(3) EC — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/2

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 27 September 2004
   in Case C-470/02 P: Union européenne de radio-télévision (UER) against Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements - Joint acquisition of television rights for international sporting events - Access of third parties to those rights - Article 81(3) EC - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2004/C 314/04)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-470/02 P, Union européenne de radio-télévision (UER), established in Grand-Saconnex (Switzerland) (lawyers: D. Waelbroeck and M. Johnsson) — appeal against the judgment of 8 October 2002 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00 M6 and Others v Commission, asking for that judgment to be set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities, Métropole télévision SA (M6), established in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France) (lawyers: P. Dian and J.-C. André) Antena 3 de Televisión SA, established in Madrid (Spain) (lawyers: S. Muñoz Machado and M. López-Contreras González), Gestevisión Telecinco SA, established in Madrid (Spain) (lawyers: S. Muñoz Machado and M. López-Contreras González), Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA (SIC), established in Linda-a-Velha (Portugal) (lawyers: C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete), Radiotelevisión Española (RTVE), Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH (DSF), established in Ismaning (Germany) (lawyer: K. Metzlaff) and Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI), established in Rome (Italy), (lawyers: G. Amorelli and D. Ciano) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, A. Borg Barthet, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus, Judges, Advocate General: F. G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 27 September 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2)

               Orders the Union européenne de radio-télévision (UER) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


               3.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 208/6

         Action brought on 22 June 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-7/09)
   2009/C 208/06
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 June 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10e of Annex XXII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that Act and under Article 7 EEA;
               and

               2.

               The Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               the present case concerns the non-implementation of a directive concerning cross-border mergers of limited liability companies,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Liechtenstein law,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not disputed that it has not implemented the directive.


title: Case T-690/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 May 2017 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 30 May 2017 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission
   (Case T-690/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public procurement - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
   (2017/C 249/43)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Enrico Colombo SpA (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Corinti Giacomo (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: P. Rosa Plaza, S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents) and Carmet Sas di Fietta Graziella & C.

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures ordering, first, suspension of implementation of the Commission measures leading to the rejection of the applicants’ tender in the context of the call for tenders JRC/IPR/2016/C.4/0002/OC and, secondly, in essence, suspension of the contract concluded between the Commission and the successful tenderer in respect of that call for tenders.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures insofar as it is directed against Carmet Sas di Fietta Graziella & C.

               2.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-364/07: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Kerkyras — Greece) — Vassilakis Spyridon, Theodoros Gkisdakis, Petros Grammenos, Nikolaos Grammenos, Theodosios Grammenos, Maria Karavassili, Eleftherios Kontomaris, Spyridon Komninos, Theofilos Mesimeris, Spyridon Monastiriotis, Spyridon Moumouris, Nektaria Mexa, Nikolaos Pappas, Christos Vlachos, Alexandros Grasselis, Stamatios Kourtelesis, Konstantinos Poulimenos, Savvas Sideropoulos, Alexandros Dellis, Michail Zervas, Ignatios Koskieris, Dimitiros Daikos, Christos Dranos v Dimos Kerkyras (Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work — Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Concepts of successive contracts and objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts — Measures intended to prevent abuse — Sanctions — Settlement at national level of disputes and grievances — Scope of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/5

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Kerkyras — Greece) — Vassilakis Spyridon, Theodoros Gkisdakis, Petros Grammenos, Nikolaos Grammenos, Theodosios Grammenos, Maria Karavassili, Eleftherios Kontomaris, Spyridon Komninos, Theofilos Mesimeris, Spyridon Monastiriotis, Spyridon Moumouris, Nektaria Mexa, Nikolaos Pappas, Christos Vlachos, Alexandros Grasselis, Stamatios Kourtelesis, Konstantinos Poulimenos, Savvas Sideropoulos, Alexandros Dellis, Michail Zervas, Ignatios Koskieris, Dimitiros Daikos, Christos Dranos v Dimos Kerkyras
   (Case C-364/07) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work - Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Concepts of ‘successive contracts’ and ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of such contracts - Measures intended to prevent abuse - Sanctions - Settlement at national level of disputes and grievances - Scope of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)
   (2008/C 236/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikeio Kerkyras
   Parties

      Applicants: Vassilakis Spyridon, Theodoros Gkisdakis, Petros Grammenos, Nikolaos Grammenos, Theodosios Grammenos, Maria Karavassili, Eleftherios Kontomaris, Spyridon Komninos, Theofilos Mesimeris, Spyridon Monastiriotis, Spyridon Moumouris, Nektaria Mexa, Nikolaos Pappas, Christos Vlachos, Alexandros Grasselis, Stamatios Kourtelesis, Konstantinos Poulimenos, Savvas Sideropoulos, Alexandros Dellis, Michail Zervas, Ignatios Koskieris, Dimitiros Daikos, Christos Dranos

      Defendant: Dimos Kerkyras (Municipality of Corfu)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikeio Kerkyras [Corfu Court of First Instance] — Interpretation of Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Employment contracts entered into with public authorities — Concept of objective reasons justifying the renewal, without restriction, of successive fixed-term contracts — Concept of successive contracts
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Where a directive is transposed belatedly into a Member State's domestic law and the relevant provisions of the directive do not have direct effect, the national courts are bound to interpret domestic law so far as possible, once the period for transposition has expired, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive concerned with a view to achieving the results sought by the directive, favouring the interpretation of the national rules which is the most consistent with that purpose in order thereby to achieve an outcome compatible with the provisions of the directive.

               2.

               Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term employment, signed on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, is to be interpreted as precluding the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts where the justification advanced for their use is solely that it is provided for by a general provision of statute or secondary legislation of a Member State. On the contrary, the concept of ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause requires recourse to this particular type of employment relationship, as provided for by national legislation, to be justified by the presence of specific factors relating in particular to the activity in question and the conditions under which it is carried out.

               3.

               Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term employment is to be interpreted as not precluding, as a general rule, a national provision, such as that referred to in the third question for a preliminary ruling, according to which only fixed-term employment contracts or employment relationships that are separated by a period of time shorter than three months can be regarded as ‘successive’ for the purposes of that clause.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the Framework Agreement is to be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as domestic law of the Member State concerned does not include, in the sector under consideration, any other effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts, the Framework Agreement precludes the application of national legislation which, in the public sector alone, prohibits absolutely the conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term contracts that have been intended to cover ‘fixed and permanent needs’ of the employer and must therefore be regarded as constituting an abuse. It is however for the referring court, in accordance with its obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law, to determine whether its domestic law does not include any such other effective measure.

               5.

               The principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term employment do not preclude, as a general rule, a provision of national law under which an independent administrative authority has jurisdiction in respect of the possible reclassification of fixed-term contracts as contracts of indefinite duration. It is however for the referring court to ensure that the right to effective judicial protection is safeguarded with due regard to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 24.10.2007.


title: Case T-416/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2006 — Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission (Interim measures — Application for a suspension of operation — State aid — Urgency)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/46

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2006 — Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission
   (Case T-416/05 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for a suspension of operation - State aid - Urgency)
   (2006/C 224/98)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olympiakes Aerogrammes AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for a suspension of operation of Article 2, combined with Article 1(1) of Commission Decision C 11/2004 on State aid (ex NN 4/2003) — Olympiaki Aeroporia — Restructuring and privatisation, of 14 September 2005
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-267/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/29

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-267/05)
   (2005/C 229/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt, resident in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005, by which it dismissed the applicant's application, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.


title: Case T-356/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2014  — Lebedef v Commission (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/61

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-356/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 315/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 in Lebedef v Commission (F 56/11, RecFP, EU:F:2013:49), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               M. Giorgio Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.