title: Case T-397/94: Action brought on 28 December 1994 by Gerjet Meyenburg against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
 No C 400 / 14                         Official Journal of the European Communities                               31 . 12 . 94
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 5 December 1994 by Ernst-Ulrich                — declare that the applicant is now entitled to enter the
Horn against Council of the European Union and                       competition at its current stage,
        Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-383/94)                           — order the Council to pay the applicant (a fixed sum)
                                                                     for material and non-material damage and expenses
                        (94/C 400/03)                                incurred,
               (Language of the case: German)                    — order the Council to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the                The applicant states that he completed an application for
European Communities on 5 December 1994 by                       Open Competition Council/A/ 338 and posted it on
Ernst-Ulrich Horn, Kembs (Federal Republic of                    Monday 28 February 1994, the closing date. Never
Germany), represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt,               theless, the Directorate for Personnel and Administration
Euskirchen, with an address for service in Luxembourg            of the Council decided not to admit him to the tests for
at the Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des                that competition on the ground that the envelope
Bains .
                                                                 containing his documentation was not postmarked and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                     that the stamp indicating receipt by the mail department
                                                                 was dated 3 March 1994 .
Order the defendants to pay to the applicant compen
sation for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988       The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that posting
in the amount of DM 41 855, together with interest               the application before midnight on 28 February 1994 is
thereon at 8 °/o from 26 January 1985.                           sufficient for an application to the competition and, on
                                                                 the other hand, that the language used in Part VI of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              Notification of Competition is not mandatory, at least in
                                                                 so far as the postmark cannot be considered to be a sine
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those         qua non of an admissible application.
in Case T-20/94 .
                                                                 The applicant considers that, given the wording of
                                                                 Section VI, a dispute as to the date of postage can be
                                                                 resolved either by accepting applications for a reasonable
                                                                 time after 28 February, beyond which the onus of
                                                                 proving postage would shift to the applicant, or, even on
                                                                 a very strict view of the matter, by requiring the
                                                                 applicant to supply proof of posting. The applicant is
                                                                 willing and able to prove postage.
Action brought on 19 December 1994 by Diarmuid
Rossa Phelan against the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-392/94)
                        (94/C 400/04)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 1994 by                      Action brought on 28 December 1994 by Gerjet
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, represented by Desmond                    Meyenburg against Council of the European Union and
O'Neill, Law Library Building, 158 /9 Church Street,                     Commission of the European Communities
Dublin.                                                                               (Case T-397/94)
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                           (94/C 400/05)
— annul the decision of 16 September 1994 whereby the                          (Language of the case : German)
    Directorate for Personnel and Administration in
    Open Competition refused to admit the applicant to           An action against the Council of the European Union
    the tests for the competition,                               and Commission of the European Communities was
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 12. 94                          Official Journal of the European Communities                           No C 400/ 15
brought before the Court of First Instance of the              — take such further action as the Court may deem
European Communities on 28 December 1994 by Gerjet                  appropriate,
Meyenburg, Sudbrookmerland (Federal Republic of
Germany), represented by Bernd-Rudiger Bessau,                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Rechtsanwalt, Emden (Federal Republic of Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should :                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Order the defendants to pay to the applicant DM                The applicant, a Dutch private company which belongs
72 791,37 together with 8 % interest from 1 November           to the same group as Jumbo Shipping Company SA and
 1994.                                                         whose main activities consist of the listing and transpor
                                                               tation by sea of heavy loads, challenges the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:            Commission's decision approving the production aid to
                                                               be granted by Germany for the building of two heavy lift
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those       vessels .
in Case T-20 /94 .
                                                               The applicant submits that this State aid measure consists
                                                               of both a cash subsidy of seven percent of the price of
                                                               the vessels, granted on the basis of the regulations
                                                               regarding the continuance of the competition aid
                                                               programmes for the territory of the Federal Republic of
                                                               Germany and a special depreciation scheme under
                                                               paragraph 82 (f) of the Einkommensteuer-Durchfuh
                                                               rungsverordnung (Income Tax Implementation Regu
Action brought on 30 December 1994 by Kahn                     lation). The effects of the subsidy caused by paragraph
Scheepvaart BV against Commission of the European              82 (f) EStDV are much higher than the two percent that
                      Communities
                                                               would be permitted under Council Directive
                    (Case T-398/94)                            90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 (the 'Seventh
                     (94/C 400/06)                             Directive').
              (Language of the case: English)                  The applicant submits that by adopting the contested
                                                               Decision, the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First              — infringed the Seventh Directive, the effect of the
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December                German scheme being clearly above the nine percent
1994 by Kahn Scheepvaart BV, represented by Thomas                 ceiling permitted under Article 4 of the Seventh
Jestaedt, Rechtsanwalt of Diisseldorf, of the law firm             Directive,
Droste, and T. R. Ottervanger of the Rotterdam Bar, of
Loeff Claeys Verbeke, with an address for service in           — breached obligations under Article 93 (2) of the EC
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67, Rue                Treaty to open formal review proceedings in respect
Ermesinde.
                                                                   of aid schemes whose compatibility with the common
The applicant claims that the Court should :                       market is in doubt, and
— annul the Decision of the Commission of the 25               — breached obligations under Article 190 of the EC
    October 1994 on aid granted by the German                      Treaty, in so far as it has failed to give proper
     Government for the building of two vessels,                   grounds for the decision.


title: Case T-335/04: Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Viz Stal and Duferco Commerciale SpA against the Council of the European Union

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/34

         Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Viz Stal and Duferco Commerciale SpA against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-335/04)
   (2004/C 273/66)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 August 2004 by Viz Stal, Ekaterinburg (Russia) and Duferco Commerciale SpA, Genova (Italy), represented by R. Luff and J-F. Bellis, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 990/2004 of 17 May 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia insofar as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the products concerned manufactured by Viz Stal and imported into the European Community by Duferco;

               2.

               order that the amendment of the rate of duty applicable to Viz Stal in the contested regulation shall remain provisionally in force until the competent institutions have adopted the measures necessary to comply with this judgement;

               3.

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested regulation (1) was adopted pursuant to an interim review initiated on the basis of a request lodged by the applicant, Viz Stal, and another request lodged by another Russian producer of the product. The requests were based on the grounds that the producers fulfilled the requirement to be granted market economy status and that their dumping margin had decreased.
   In the framework of the interim review, which was limited to the determination of the dumping margin, the normal value and the export price for the applicant were calculated and, as a result, the anti-dumping margin for the applicant, Viz Stal, was determined. According to the applicants, the normal value and export price were unlawfully determined.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Articles 2(3) and 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (2) in rejecting the prices paid by Viz Stal to its supplier. According to the applicants, the Commission erroneously concluded that Viz Stal and its supplier, Magnitogorsk, were associated parties and that the prices charged were unreliable. In this regard, the applicants also submit a violation of their rights of defence as guaranteed in Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation and Article 6.2 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the Commission infringed Articles 2(5) and 2(6) of the Basic Regulation, in increasing the financing costs incurred by Viz Stal, as reflected in its accounting records, by applying an interest rate on non-interest bearing loans granted by Vetrade, the holding company of Viz Stal. According to the applicants, no cost has actually been incurred by Viz Stal with respect to those loans, which cannot be compared to loans granted by independent third parties. The applicants also claim that the interest rate used by the Commission was arbitrary.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission erred in deducting twice the credit costs from the export price. The applicants submit that the Commission, on the one hand, deducted, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic regulation, the credit costs as part of the selling, general and administrative costs. On the other hand, the Commission also made, pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, an adjustment to the export price for the credit costs related to payment terms granted by Duferco to the first independent buyer.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 990/2004 of 17 May 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia (OJ L 182, p. 5).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case T-432/08: Action brought on 1 October 2008 — AKM v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/33

         Action brought on 1 October 2008 — AKM v Commission
   (Case T-432/08)
   (2008/C 327/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision, in so far as it relates to AKM, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application concerns Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC, in which the Commission found concerted practices in connection with the reciprocal grant of music copyright between collecting societies which are members of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (‘CISAC’) to be incompatible with Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision in so far as the Commission found that AKM infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by using in its reciprocal representation agreements the membership restrictions contained in Article 11(2) of the CISAC model contract or by de facto applying membership restrictions, and by coordinating the territorial restriction of licences, and in so far as AKM was directed to bring those infringements to an end.
   The applicant relies on the following pleas in law in support of its claims:
   The applicant submits, first, that the Commission erred in its findings of fact as regards the application of membership restrictions by AKM. The Commission did not produce any evidence to prove that AKM actually applied such a restriction. On the contrary, the Commission failed to take into consideration evidence of the fact that AKM operates an ‘open membership policy’. In addition, the Commission overlooked the fact that the previously applicable membership clauses in AKM's reciprocal representation agreements were, at least tacitly, dispensed with and are no longer included in reciprocal representation agreements entered into by AKM.
   Furthermore, Article 3 of the Commission's decision, in which the Commission accuses AKM of ‘[infringing] Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by coordinating the territorial delineations in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society’, is inconsistent with the reasons for the decision. In particular, the operative part of the decision is not limited to the means of transmission (satellite, internet and cable) which the Commission dealt with in its considerations.
   Moreover, the existing territorial delineations of licences in AKM's reciprocal representation agreements are not the product of a concerted practice. Essentially, the Commission relied solely on the fact that the reciprocal representation agreements of European collecting societies follow a standard system as proof of the existence of an intentional concerted practice. The explanation for this parallel conduct can, however, readily be found in the traditional market structures and the statutory framework for the activities of collecting societies.
   Finally, the Commission's decision infringes the principle of legality, since it is not clear from Article 4(2) of the decision what is meant by the requirement to ‘review’ certain contractual provisions.


title: Case T-8/07: Action brought on 4 January 2007 — Torres v OHIM–Gala-Salvador Dalí (TG Torre Galatea)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/34

         Action brought on 4 January 2007 — Torres v OHIM–Gala-Salvador Dalí (TG Torre Galatea)
   (Case T-8/07)
   (2007/C 56/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M.A Baz de San Ceferino, and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 24 October 2006 in case R 168/2006-2

               —

               Order expressly that the Office pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TG Torre Galatea’ for goods in Class 33 (application No 2730513)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘TORRES 10’ for goods in Class 33 (No 466896) and numerous other Community, national and international trade marks

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld, annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion of the conflicting marks

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trademark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).


title: Case T-296/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Erbslöh v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Erbslöh v Commission
   (Case T-296/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))
   (2014/C 431/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erbslöh AG (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-552/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/59

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council
   (Case T-552/15)
   (2015/C 398/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should declare:

               —

               that by adopting and maintaining the restrictive measure adopted by the Council of the European Union against BRK, which was annulled by judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 (Case T-25/11), the Council of the European Union incurred the non-contractual liability of the European Union;

               —

               that, consequently, the European Union must compensate the applicant for the damage suffered;

               —

               that the material damage amounts to EUR 6 8 6 51  318, to which statutory interest must be added, plus any other justified amount;

               —

               that the non-material damage amounts to EUR 5 2 5 47  415, to which statutory interest must be added, plus any other justified amount;

               —

               in the alternative, that all or part of the amounts claimed in respect of non-material damage be considered to relate to material damage and be taken into account as such; and

               —

               that the Council must be ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, two of which relate to the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability and three to the damage resulting from the unlawful act committed by the Council of the European Union.

               —

               As regards the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability

                           1.

                           First plea in law, alleging that the conduct of which the Council is accused (adoption and maintenance of measure freezing the applicant’s funds) is unlawful, as established by judgment of 6 September 2013 in Bank Refah Kargaran v Council, T-24/11, ECR, EU:T:2013:403.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law, alleging that the unlawful act committed by the Council is a sufficiently serious breach of rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals.

               —

               As regards the damage resulting from the unlawful act committed by the Council of the European Union

                           3.

                           Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s business with institutions situated in the European Union ceased as a result of the freezing of its funds.

                           4.

                           Fourth plea in law, alleging loss of earnings following the blocking of credit lines.

                           5.

                           Fifth plea in law, alleging non-material damage.


title: Case C-512/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/24

         Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
   (Case C-512/14 P)
   (2015/C 138/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal,

               —

               Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and

               —

               Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case C-360/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v Aziz Hasan

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v Aziz Hasan
   (Case C-360/16)
   (2016/C 343/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Respondent: Aziz Hasan

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a case where a third-country national, after lodging a second asylum application in another Member State (here, Germany), was transferred to the Member State having original responsibility for the first asylum application (here, Italy) because of a court’s rejection of his application for suspension of the transfer decision under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’) and then immediately returned illegally to the second Member State (here, Germany):

                           a)

                           According to the principles of the Dublin III Regulation, is the factual situation that is relevant for a court’s review of a transfer decision the situation that pertained at the time of the transfer, because responsibility was definitively determined by transfer within the time limit and therefore the rules in the Dublin III Regulation concerning responsibility are no longer applicable to further developments, or is it necessary to take into consideration subsequent developments in the circumstances relevant to responsibility in general, e.g. expiry of time limits for a take back or (renewed) transfer?

                           b)

                           Following determination of responsibility on the basis of the transfer decision, can further transfers be made to the Member State having original responsibility, and does that Member State remain obligated to take charge of the third-country national?

               2.

               If responsibility is not definitively determined by the transfer: Which of the provisions listed below applies in such a case to a person described in Article 18(1)(b), (c), or (d) of the Dublin III Regulation on account of an ongoing appeal against the already enforced transfer decision:

                           a)

                           Article 23 of the Dublin III Regulation (analogously), with the result that, in the case of a new take back request that is not submitted within the time limit, responsibility can shift in accordance with Article 23(2) and (3) of the Dublin III Regulation, or

                           b)

                           Article 24 of the Dublin III Regulation (analogously), or

                           c)

                           neither of the provisions set forth in a) and b)?

               3.

               In the event that neither Article 23 nor Article 24 applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(c)): Can further transfers be made to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) on the basis of the challenged transfer decision until conclusion of the appeal against such decision, and does that Member State remain obligated to take charge of the third-country national, irrespective of whether further take back requests have been submitted without complying with the time limits in Article 23(3) or Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and irrespective of the transfer time limits in Article 29(1) and (2) of the Dublin III Regulation?

               4.

               In the event that Article 23 of the Dublin III Regulation applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(a)): Is the new take back request tied (analogously) to a new time limit under Article 23(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? If so: Does this new time limit start to run when the responsible authority learns of re-entry, or does another event determine its commencement?

               5.

               In the event that Article 24 of the Dublin III Regulation applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(b)):

                           a)

                           Is the submission of a new take back request tied (analogously) to a new time limit under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? If so: Does this new time limit start to run when the responsible authority learns of re-entry, or does another event determine its commencement?

                           b)

                           If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: Does the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation directly establish the responsibility of the other Member State (here, Germany), or may it, despite the new asylum application, submit a new take back request to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) without being bound by a time limit, or transfer the foreign national to that Member State without submitting a take back request?

                           c)

                           If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: Is the lis pendens of an asylum application lodged in the other Member State (here, Germany) prior to transfer equivalent to the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation?

                           d)

                           If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and the foreign national neither lodges a new asylum application and the lis pendens of an asylum application lodged in the other Member State (here, Germany) prior to transfer is not equivalent to the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation: Can the other Member State (here, Germany) submit a new take back request to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) without being bound by a time limit, or transfer the foreign national to that Member State without submitting a take back request?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).


title: Case F-106/14: Action brought on 9 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/45

         Action brought on 9 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-106/14)
   (2015/C 026/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission’s decision, pursuant to Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, to allocate the applicant, from 1 January 2014, only 2.5 days of additional leave in respect of ‘home leave’ instead of granting him ‘travelling time’ of 5 days, to which he was previously entitled.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision resulting from the ‘Rights’ page of the SYSPER site and confirmed by Commission Decision No R/396/14 of 2 July 2014 rejecting a complaint, to allocate the applicant, from 1 January 2014, 2.5 days of additional leave in respect of ‘home leave’ instead of 5 days ‘travelling time’, to which he was entitled previously, on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-638/11: Action brought on 12 December 2011 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v European Medicines Agency

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/29

         Action brought on 12 December 2011 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v European Medicines Agency
   (Case T-638/11)
   2012/C 49/52
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision under number EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency (‘the EMA’), of which the applicants were notified on 3 October 2011, and by which the EMA rejected their tender in the procurement procedure at issue;

               —

               annul the decision under number EMA/882467/2011 of the Acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request for the composition of the evaluation committee to be disclosed to them;

               —

               order the EMA to pay all the applicants’ entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicants seek annulment of the following measures: (i) the EMA’s decision under number EMA/787935/2011 of which the applicants were notified on 3 October 2011 and by which the EMA rejected their tender in the open procurement procedure under number EMA/2011/05/DV and (ii) the decision under number EMA/882467/2011 of the Acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011 by which the EMA, following a confirmatory application by the applicants, rejected their request for access to documents in the procurement procedure, relating to the composition of the evaluation committee.
   The applicants request the annulment of the first of the contested decisions for breach of essential procedural requirements, more specifically, because of a defective or inadequate statement of reasons and also because of a complete absence of reasons, since: (a) that decision did not contain and continues not to contain a sufficient statement of reasons as to the grounds for rejecting the applicants’ tender and in any event the statement of reasons is defective, the applicants submitting in particular that the decision does not contain comments regarding the places where their tender was inferior and regarding those where the tenders submitted by the other tenderers excelled; (b) it did not contain and continues not to contain a statement of reasons regarding the mathematical formula (algorithm) on the basis of which the applicants’ precise mark (to the second decimal place) was reached; (c) it did not contain and continues not to contain a statement of reasons as to why the financial offer of one of the tenderers was not considered abnormally low.
   The applicants submit that the second of the contested decisions must be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, for infringement of a rule of law of the European Union, namely of Regulation No 1049/2001, as rendered more specific by the provisions applying that regulation to the EMA, because the EMA rejected the applicants’ request for access to the names and other details of the members of the evaluation committee for the procurement procedure at issue.


title: Case C-392/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-392/04)
   (2004/C 273/35)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 7 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (the licensing directive) to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a licence fee calculated to anticipate the amount of a national regulatory authority's general administrative costs over a period of 30 years, to be charged in advance?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

               2.

               Are Article 10 EC and Article 11 of the licensing directive to be interpreted as meaning that a fee assessment that determines fees within the meaning of Question 1 and which has not been contested although such a possibility is afforded under national law must be set aside where that is permissible under national law but not mandatory?


title: Case C-370/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 331/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.11.2001
     In so far as the Commission has sought to suggest that             Pleas in law and main arguments
     the Netherlands Government had failed to make clear at
     an earlier stage that the activities of tug boats were also
     intended to be covered by the two measures, which might            Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
     have constituted a reason enabling the Commission to               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     classify that application of the existing measures as ‘new         each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
     aid’, the Netherlands Government strenuously denies that           required to observe the time limits laid down in directives for
     assertion;                                                         their transposition. Those time limits expired on 30 Avril
                                                                        2000 and 30 June 2000 respectively without the Italian
—    Decision contrary to the principle of the protection of            Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
     legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty;      in order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
                                                                        Commission’s application.
—    Decision contrary to the principle that reasons must
     always be given.                                                   (1) OJ 1999 L 91, p. 29.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1999 L 139, p. 29.
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Com-                         Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                 mission of the European Communities against the United
                            Republic                                                                   Kingdom
                        (Case C-370/01)                                                           (Case C-373/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/23)
                        (2001/C 331/22)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Septem-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Septem-              ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The Applicant requests that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that by failing to adopt and publish before
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   1 January 2000 the provisions necessary to comply with
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   Commission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                      adapting to technical progress Commission Directive
                                                                              91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing
     (a)    Commission Directive 1999/21/EC (1) of 25 March                   certain dangerous substances (1), or in any event by failing
            1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes;               to inform the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
            and                                                               has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
     (b) Commission Directive 1999/50/EC (2) of 25 May                  —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
            1999 amending Directive 91/321/EEC on infant
            formulae and follow-on formulae;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
     Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under those directives;
                                                                        Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
                                                                        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the


title: Case C-148/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Kingdom of Belgium v Deutsche Post AG, DHL International, European Commission (Appeal — Action for annulment — State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Commission decision not to raise objections — Concept of doubts — Services of general economic interest)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Kingdom of Belgium v Deutsche Post AG, DHL International, European Commission
   (Case C-148/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Commission decision not to raise objections - Concept of ‘doubts’ - Services of general economic interest)
   2011/C 331/02
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and T. Materne, Agents, and J. Meyers, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: T. Lübbig and J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte), DHL International (represented by: T. Lübbig and J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (B. Martenczuk and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2009 in Case T-388/03 Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission, by which the Court annulled Commission Decision C(2003) 2508 final of 23 July 2003 not to raise objections, following the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to several measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in favour of La Poste SA — Compensation of net costs of services of general economic interest — Certain circumstances wrongly classified as evidence of serious difficulties necessitating the initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Inadmissible pleas taken into consideration — Breach of the principle of legal certainty

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case T-453/04: Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Dr Peter Lesetar against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/25

         Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Dr Peter Lesetar against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-453/04)
   (2005/C 57/42)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Dr Peter Lesetar, represented by E.I. Faludy, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reverse EPSO's decision not to place the applicant on the list of successful candidates for competition EPSO/LA/11/03;

               —

               order the placement of the applicant on that list;

               —

               order the payment to the applicant of the salary he would have received if he had been duly put on the list of successful candidates, for the time period from the average of the times of commencing employment of the candidates preceding and following him on the list to the day he can actually take up employment, having been placed on the list.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims the evaluation of his written work in the context of the above competition grossly understates his performance, that the evaluation of the oral interview also had its flaws and that, overall, his suitability for the job in question has not been examined and evaluated properly.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 18 May 1995 in Case C-57/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Failure to publish a notice of invitation to tender)

text:
22 . 7 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 189/1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  organization of the markets in the sugar sector, as amended
                        (Fourth Chamber)                              by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1396/78 of 20 June 1978,
                                                                      Article 8 (2), third subparagraph (a), of Council Regulation
                          of 4 May 1995                               (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
in Case C-19/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         organization of the markets in the sugar sector and
Cour Administrative d'Appel, Nantes ): SA des Sucreries de            Article 6 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 of
Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA ) v. Ministre du                 20 June 1977 laying down general rules for offsetting
                              Budget O                                storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation (EEC)
(Common organization ofthe markets in the sugar sector —              No 750/68 must be interpreted as meaning that the
System for offsetting storage costs — Chargeable event for            prescribed conditions for materialization of the obligation
                             storage levy)                            to pay the storage levy are satisfied when the sugar is
                                                                      disposed of
                           ( 95/C 189/01 )
                                                                      (!)  OJ No  C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                 (Language of the case: French)                       (2)  OJ No  L 177, 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                      (3 ) OJ No  L 156 , 25 . 6 . 1977, p . 4 .
                                                                      (4 ) OJ No  L 231 , 23 . 8 . 1978 , p. 5 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-19/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Cour Administrative d'Appel
( Administrative Court of Appeal ), Nantes, for a preliminary                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                      of 18 May 1995
SA des Sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay
( SAFBA) and the Ministre du Budget, on the interpretation                   in Case C-57/94: Commission of the European
of Article 8 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of                     Communities v. Italian Republic ( a )
30 June 1981 on the common organization ofthe markets in              (Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Public works
the sugar sector (2 ), Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1358/77           contracts — Failure to publish a notice of invitation to
of 20 June 1977 laying down general rules for offsetting                                                tender)
storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation ( EEC )                                           ( 95/C 189/02 )
No 750/68 ( 3 ), and Article 12 of Commission Regulation
( EEC ) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed
rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar ( 4), the                         (Language of the case: ltalian)
Court ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,
President ofthe Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) and            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D.                         published in the European Court Reports)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 May 1995 , the operative
part of which is as follows :                                         In Case C-57/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Antonio Aresu) against the Italian
                                                                      Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by
Article 8 (1 ), third subparagraph (a), of Council Regulation         Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato ) — application for a
(EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974 on the common                    declaration that, in so far as the provincial administration of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 189/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 7 . 95
Ascoli Piceno awarded a private contract for the 11th and               right of establishment and freedom to provide services (2),
12th supplementary reports for the completion of the                    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
section of rapid transit highway 'Ascoli—Mare ' entitled                that Article and under Article 1 of Council Directive
' Stage IV — Project 5134' and failed to publish a notice of            78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination of
invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the European            provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
Communities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its              action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners ( 3 )
obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July               — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de
award of public works contracts (2 ) — the Court, composed              Almeida, D. A. . O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and J.-P.
of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler            Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho               1 June 1995 , in which it:
de Almeida , J. L. Murray, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges ; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.                   1 , declares that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                    31 October 1988, until 1984/85, with regard to
on 18 May 1 995 , the operative part of which is as                           diplomas in medicine and surgery, the final date set in
follows :                                                                     Article 19 of the Council Directive 78/686/EEC of
                                                                              25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of
1 , in so far as the provincial administration of Ascoli                      diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal
      Piceno awarded a private contract for the 11th and 12th                 qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including
      supplementary reports for the completion of the section                 measures to facilitate the effective exercise ofthe right of
      ofrapid transit highway 'Ascoli-Mare ' entitled 'Stage IV               estrablishment and freedom to provide services, the
      — Project 5134 ' and failed to publish a notice of                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the                     that Article and under Article 1 of Council Directive
      European Communities, the Italian Republic has failed                   78/6871EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
      to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive                       coordination ofprovisions laid down by law, regulation
      71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the                              or administrative action in respect of the activities of
      coordination of procedures for the award of public                      dental practitioners;
      works contracts;
                                                                        2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2 , the Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 70, 12 . 3 . 1993 .
(M OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                         (2 ) OJ No L 233 , 24 . 8 . 1978 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 185 , 16 . 8 . 1971 , p . 5 .                             ( 3 ) OJ No L 233 , 24 . 8 . 1978 , p . 10 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Third Chamber)
                           of 1 June 1995                                                          of 1 June 1995
        in Case C-40/93 : Commission of the European                    in Case C-459/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
              Communities v. Italian Republic (*)                       the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 78/686/EEC and                          v. Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH ( x )
                              78/687/EEC)                                (Common Customs Tariff — Council Regulation (EEC)
                             ( 95/C 189/03 )                            No 3618/86 — Tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 —
                                                                        Mixtures ofamino acids usedfor thepreparation ofinfusion
                                                                                solutions)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/04 )
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                      (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-40/93 : Commission of the European                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Communities ( Agent: Enrico Traversa ) v . Italian Republic                        published in the European Court Reports)
 ( Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of 31 October 1988 , until            In Case C-459/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1984/85 , with regard to diplomas in medicine and surgery,             of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( German Federal
the final date set in Article 19 of Council Directive                   Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual                       pending before that court between Hauptzollamt
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of             Hamburg-St. Annen and Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH on
the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,                the interpretation of tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 of
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the          the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Council


title: Case C-41/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/30

         Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-41/06)
   (2006/C 60/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky and B. Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2002/31/EC of 22 March 2002 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household air-conditioners (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that dircetive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2002/31 expired on 31 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 86 of 03.04.2002, p. 26


title: Case T-168/11: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/15

         Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament
   (Case T-168/11)
   2012/C 250/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: AQ (Żary, Poland) (represented by: K. Rosiak, legal adviser)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant’s appointed representative requests the Court to:

               —

               declare that the applicant’s action is inadmissible and that there is no need to examine it; and to

               —

               declare that there is no basis on which the applicant can receive compensation in view of the fact that no actual and certain harm was caused by any act or omission of the European Parliament.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his submissions, the applicant’s appointed representative relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law:

                           —

                           Unless it is established that the European Parliament’s letter of 7 July 2008 contains a decision of the Petitions Committee relating to an earlier petition of the applicant, the content of which corresponds in full to the content of that petition, it may be assumed that there was, in the present case, satisfaction of the condition relating to breach by the European Parliament of essential procedural requirements (Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament) and that the European Parliament failed to issue an act to the applicant in response to the petition addressed to it;

               2.

               Second plea in law:

                           —

                           In view, however, of the fact that the petition does not concern matters coming within the field of activity of the European Union, the applicant does not have any legal interest in bringing the action;

               3.

               Third plea in law:

                           —

                           furthermore, in view of the fact that the periods for effectively bringing an action under both Article 230 EC (Article 263 TFEU) and Article 232 EC (Article 265 TFEU) had already expired at the time when the applicant applied for legal aid, the action is inadmissible.


title: Case C-278/11 P: Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament (Appeal — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Review of the use of allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Justification of expenditure — Recovery of undue payments)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/18

         Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament
   (Case C-278/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Review of the use of allowances - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Justification of expenditure - Recovery of undue payments)
   2012/C 366/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Densmore Ronald Dover (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester, Barrister and R. Collard, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-149/09 Dover v European Parliament by which the General Court annulled in part the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 to recover certain sums unduly paid to the appellant by way of expenses and parliamentary allowances

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Densmore Ronald Dover is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case F-50/10: Action brought on 1 July 2010 — De Roos-Le Large v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/27

         Action brought on 1 July 2010 — De Roos-Le Large v Commission
   (Case F-50/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/36
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Simone Thérèse De Roos-Le Large ('s Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Lutjens and M.H. van Loon, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision ordering the applicant to repay the amount of the survivor’s pension overpaid to her late mother

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 12 May 2010;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-13/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/61

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-13/14) (1)

   (2017/C 144/86)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 8 October 2012 in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 — Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               31.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 29/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 8 October 2012
   in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11
   Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 29/09
   In Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11, Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 8 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications.

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.


C 144/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-425/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-369/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/53)                                                   (2002/C 144/56)
By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-425/99 (Referral for a preliminary      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Akhtar Seyed Abbasy v           register of Case C-369/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank                     Council of the European Union.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-387/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-29/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/54)                                                   (2002/C 144/57)
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-29/00: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-387/00: European Parliament v
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-321/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-393/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/55)                                                   (2002/C 144/58)
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-321/00: Federal Republic of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                   from the register of Case C-393/00: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-203/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Alchaar v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures — Links with the regime — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to privacy)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Alchaar v Council
   (Case T-203/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Links with the regime - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy))
   2014/C 282/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamad Nedal Alchaar (Aleppo, Syria) (represented by: A. Korkmaz, D. Amaudruz and A. Boesch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Cujo and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 8) and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as those acts contain restrictive measures concerning the applicant, as well as of all future acts amending that decision or regulation and, secondly, of the Council’s communication of 16 March 2012 informing the applicant that his name was being maintained on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Mohamad Nedal Alchaar;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Alchaar;

               4.

               Orders Mr Alchaar to bear one third of his own costs;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 March 1995 in Case T-395/94 R: Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
24. 6 . 95          [ EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/23
4 , ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.                       which are to be paid by the applicant. Each of the
                                                                           interveners shall pay its own costs.
(!) OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 254, 11 . 9 . 1991 , p. 14.                             ( i ) OJ No C 29, 2 . 2 . 1993 and OJ No C 62, 4 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 286 , 1 . 10 . 1992 , p . 2 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 2 May 1995                                         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation                                         of 10 March 1995
and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v. Council of the European
                                                                     in Case T-395/94 R: Atlantic Container Line AB and Others
                             Union O
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities
(Anti-dumping duty on ball-bearings — Review —
Regulation modifying a definitive anti-dumping duty —                                             95/C 159/49 )
                 Determination of the injury)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          ( 95/C 159/48 )
                                                                     In Case T-395/94 R, Atlantic Container Line AB,
               (Language of the case: English)                       established in Gothenburg, Sweden, Cho Yang Shipping
                                                                     Company Ltd, established in Seoul, DSR-Senator Lines
In Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94, NTN                           GmbH, established in Bremen, Germany, Hapag Lloyd AG,
Corporation, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan ),           established in Hamburg, Germany, MSC Mediterranean
represented by Jürgen Schwarze and Malte Sprenger,                   Shipping Company SA, established in Geneva, Switzerland,
Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf, with an address for service in             A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Penning, 78                     Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam, the
Grand-Rue, and Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd, whose registered                 Netherlands, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd (NOL), established
office is in Osaka, represented by Jacques Buhart of the Paris       in Singapore, Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line ),
Bar and Charles Kaplan, Barrister, with an address for               established in Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt               Ltd, established in Levington, United Kingdom, P&O
and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Council of                 Containers Ltd, established in London, Polish Ocean Lines,
the European Union ( Agents: R. Torrent, J. Monteiro, H. -J.         established in Gdynia, Poland, Sea-Land Service Inc .,
Rabe and G. Berrisch ), supported by the Federation of               established in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States of
European        Bearing       Manufacturers '     Associations,      America, Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico DF, and
represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,                    Transportación Maritima Mexicana SA, established in
Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in               Mexico DF, represented by John Pheasant, Nicholas
Luxembourg in Case T-163/94 at the Chambers of Messrs                Bromfield and Suyong Kim, Solicitors, with an address for
Arendt and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and in                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Case T-165/94 at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue                  Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by the Japanese
Michel Welter, and, in Case T-165/94 , supported also by the         Shipowners' Association, having its head office in Tokyo,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : E.                  represented by Nicholas J. Forwood QC, of the Bar of
White and C. -M. Happe ) — application for the annulment             England and Wales, and Philip Rutley, Solicitor, with an
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2849/92 of 28 September             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on                   Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and the
imports of ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter           European Community Shipowners ' Associations ASBL,
exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by                      having its head office in Brussels, represented by Denis
Regulation (EEC ) No 1739/85 ( 2 ) — the Court of First              Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Instance ( Third Chamber, extended composition )                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10
composed of: J. Biancarelli, President, R. Schintgen, C. P.          Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the European
Briët, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges, H.            Communities (Agents : B. Langeheine and R. Lyal ),
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 May 1995 in               supported by the Freight Transport Association Ltd, having
which it:                                                            its head office in Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom, the
                                                                     Association des Utilisateurs de Transport de Fret, having its
1 , annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC)                     head office in Paris, and the European Council of Transport
     No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the                   Users, having its head office in Brussels, represented by
     definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                      Mark Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
     ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
     exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by                 of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue — application for an order
     Regulation (EEC) No 1 739/85, in so far as it imposes an        suspending the operation of Commission Decision
     anti-dumping duty on the applicants;                            94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a proceeding
                                                                     pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/34.446 —
2 , orders the Council to bear its own costs and those of the        Trans-Atlantic Agreement) ( a ) — the President of the Court
     applicants, with the exception of the costs of the              of First Instance has made an order on 10 March 1995 , the
     applicant in Case T-l 63/94 relating to the intervention,       operative part of which is as follows :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24 . 6 . 95
1 . the Japanese Shipowners ' Association and the European            2 , the costs are reserved.
     Community Shipowners ' Association are granted leave
     to intervene in support of the applicants;
2 . the Freight Transport Association, the Association des
     Utilisateurs des Transports de Fret and the European
     Council of Transport Users ASBL are granted leave to                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     intervene in support of the defendant;                                                     of 27 April 1995
                                                                      in Case T-393/94 : P v. Commission of the European
3 , the applicants ' request for confidential treatment of                                      Communities i 1 )
     certain parts of the file is granted;
                                                                                (No need to give a decision)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/51 )
4 , operation of Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Commission
     Decision 94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty                                (Language of the case: French)
     (IV/34.446 — Trans-Atlantic Agreement) , in so far as
     they prohibit the applicants from jointly exercising             In Case T-393/94, P, represented by Marie Vicelli and
     rate-making authority in respect of the inland portions          Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
     within the Community of through-intermodal transport             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 21
     services, is suspended until delivery ofthe final judgment       Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European
     of the Court of First Instance in the main action;               Communities ( Agent: J. Griesmar ) — application for the
                                                                      annulment of several decisions of the Commission reducing
5 . there is no need to rule on the application for suspension        the rates of reimbursement of hospital expenses to the
     of the operation of those Articles with regard to the            applicant — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
     conclusion of joint service contracts;                           composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and H. Kirschner
                                                                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; Registrar: H.Jung, made an
6 , the application for suspension of the operation of                order on 27 April 1995 of which the operative part is as
                                                                      follows :
     Article 5 of the Decision is dismissed;
7.   costs are reserved.                                               1 . there is no need to give a decision on the application;
(») OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                            2 , the defendant shall bear the costs.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 11 April 1995                              Action brought on 3 April 1995 by Tiziano Boggian against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gómez de Enterria v. European
                             Parliament                                                          ( Case T-92/95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/50 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/52
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gômez de Enterria, an official               An action against the Commission of the European
of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1 995 by
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis             Tiziano Boggian, an independent trader resident in
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. European Parliament               Montagnana ( Padua, Italy), represented by Ivone
 ( Agents : G. Garzon Clariana and M. Peter ) — application            Cacciavillani of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
for suspension of the implementation of the decision of the            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
President of the European Parliament of 19 December 1994               Albert I er .
retiring the applicant from her post pursuant to Article 50 of
the Staff Regulations — the President of the Court of First            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Instance made an order on 1 1 April 1995 , the operative part
 of which is as follows :
                                                                       — annul Commission Decision No C(91 ) 1725 of 29 July
                                                                              1991 (not published ), approving and granting EEC
 1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                       financing for the ' Operational programme for the


title: Case C-300/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (Directive 91/628/EEC — Protection of animals during transport — Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods — Definition of travel ( Transportdauer ) — Account to be taken of the time taken to load and unload the animals)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH
   (Case C-300/05) (1)

   (Directive 91/628/EEC - Protection of animals during transport - Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods - Definition of ‘travel’ (‘Transportdauer’) - Account to be taken of the time taken to load and unload the animals)
   (2006/C 331/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Defendant: ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the Annex (Chapter VII, point 48(4)(d)) to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52) — Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods — Meaning of ‘travel’ (‘Transportdauer’) — Inclusion of the loading time of the animals
   Operative part of the judgment
   ‘Travel’, referred to in point 48(4)(d) of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, is to be interpreted as including the time taken to load and unload the animals.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case T-64/06: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLS Plast v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability — Principle of ne bis in idem)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLS Plast v Commission
   (Case T-64/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability - Principle of ne bis in idem)
   2012/C 118/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FLS Plast A/S (Valby, Denmark) (represented initially by: K. Lasok QC and subsequently by M. Thill-Tayara, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds FLS Plast A/S liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, for the period from 31 December 1990 to 31 December 1991;

               2.

               Sets the amount for payment of which FLS Plast is held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(f) of Decision C(2005) 4634 at EUR 14.45 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and FLS Plast each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.