title: Case C-406/00: Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 372/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
1.    In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses       The Commission claims that the Court should:
      excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
      their tenders explanations concerning components of the           —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle               Commission Directive 98/100/EC (1) of 21 December
      to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?             1998 amending Directive 92/76/EEC (2) recognising pro-
                                                                              tected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in
2.    Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining                   the Community, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
      automatically the threshold indicative of irregularity,                 its obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
      below which the validity of tenders falls to be verified, on
      the basis of an ad hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean,        —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      so that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold
      in advance, represent an obstacle to the application of
      Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
3.    Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place
      at an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of          Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      an opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
      the envelopes and before the adoption of the measure              State to which they are addressed.
      excluding it, represent an obstacle to the application of
      Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                        Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
                                                                        States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
4.    Does a provision under which the contracting authority            particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
      may take account of explanations relating solely to the           of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
      economy of the construction method or the technical               of the Community.
      solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
      ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
      the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?              It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
5.    Does the exclusion of explanations relating to items for
      which minimum values can be inferred from official lists          The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
      represent an obstacle to the application of Article 30(4)         has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate that
      of Directive 93/37?                                               directive fully into Greek law.
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the          (1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35.
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works            (2) OJ L 305, 21.10.1992, p. 12.
    contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-272/98 (1)
Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                              Republic                                                           (2000/C 372/17)
                         (Case C-406/00)                                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case C-272/98: (reference for a preliminary
                         (2000/C 372/16)                                ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First
                                                                        Instance) No 35 Barcelona): Artel SA v Francisca Arencom
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the          Salazar.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 November
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,              (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de ]a Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 13 March 1998, in the case of The Queen against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R. and P. Fisher (a firm) (Case C-369/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/17
Ð The requirement of authorisation from the Ministry of                  competent institution or in accordance with that
    Finance for the transfer of shares representing more                 organised by the State on whose territory the hospital
    than 10 % of the voting capital of privatised                        treatment has taken place?
    companies (or of a specified participation in financial
    institutions), in the terms set out in Decree-Law
    No 380/93, is incompatible with Articles 73(b) and 52
    of the EC Treaty, the requirement of such                       Ð Is a limitation of the amount reimbursed under the
    authorisation could only be justified by imperative                  legislation of the State of the competent institution
    reasons in the general interest and if they were based               permitted, having regard to Article 36 of Regulation
    on objective criteria which are consistent and public in             (EEC) No 1408/71 which refers to reimbursement in
    character, in the absence of which that requirement                  full?
    could be used so as to keep control of the undertaking
    in question in the hands of nationals. The Portuguese
    authorities have not indicated what imperative reasons          (1) (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
    in the general interest might justify such a measure. As
    regards the criteria which are to serve as guidance for
    the grant of authorisation, the Commission continues
    to hold the view that such criteria either are not
    indicated in the legislation or, in the event of Decree-
    Law No 380/93 referring to Decree-Law No 11/90,
    the prescribed criteria may be interpreted and applied
    in such a way as to benefit Portuguese citizens, to the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
    detriment of the nationals of other Member States.              Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                    13 March 1998, in the case of The Queen against
(1) OJ L 302, 15.11.1985.                                           Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                    Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R.
                                                                                and P. Fisher (a firm)
                                                                                (Case C-369/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/29)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
Travail, Mons, by judgment of that court of 9 October
1998 in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Vanbraekel,      Marie-Paule    Vanbraekel,     Marie-Claire
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and
                                                                    Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 March 1998, which
Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des
                                                                    was received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1998,
                   MutualiteÂs ChreÂtiennes
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                       (Case C-368/98)                              Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                    Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R.
                        (98/C 397/28)
                                                                    and P. Fisher (a firm), on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Sixth                     (1) (i) Do Articles 3(1) and 9 of Regulation (EEC)
Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),                          No 3508/92 (1), coupled with the general
Mons, of 9 October 1998, which was received at the                             principles of Community law, permit information
Court Registry on 16 October 1998, for a preliminary                           held on a computerised data base set up under
ruling in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange                             Article 2, relating to data supplied by or on
Vanbraekel, Marie Paule Vanbraekel, Marie-Claire                               behalf of a former claimant for payments under
Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and                          AAPs, to be disclosed to third parties?
Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des
MutualiteÂs ChreÂtiennes on the following questions:
                                                                          (ii) If the answer to question 1(i) is yes', is the
Where, in the context of proceedings before it, a national                     disclosure which the competent authority is
court has acknowledged that hospital treatment in a                            lawfully required to provide limited, as regards
Member State other than that of the competent institution                      the persons to whom disclosure can be made:
was necessary, although the prior authorisation provided
for in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) was                       (a) to persons authorised by the former claimant
refused:                                                                            on the UK Base Form; and/or
Ð Must the costs of hospital treatment be reimbursed                           (b) to persons who require the information
    in accordance with the scheme of the State of the                               in connection with their application for
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   19.12.98
                agricultural aid in respect of the same land as        (1) Did Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an
                the former claimant even where the former                  Association between the European Economic
                claimant refuses to disclose the information;              Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on
                                                                           12 September 1963 (the EEC-Turkey Agreement')
                and as regards the information to be                       become directly effective at the end of the transitional
                disclosed:                                                 period (31 December 1993) in accordance with
                                                                           Article 36 of the Additional (Financial) Protocol to
           (c) to that information which does not constitute               the EEC-Turkey Agreement signed at Brussels on
                commercially confidential information; and/                23 November 1970 (the Additional Protocol')?
                or
           (d) to that information which it is necessary to            (2) Is Article 6 of Decision 1/80 of the Council of
                disclose to ensure that the person requesting              Association (Decision 1/80'):
                the information can, by taking reasonable
                steps, avoid incurring penalties in connection             (i)   ultra vires the Council of Association by
                with his own application for agricultural aid.                   requiring satisfaction of the condition duly
                                                                                registered as belonging to the labour force of a
                                                                                Member State';
(2) If the answer to question 1(i) is yes', and the
      competent authorities have unlawfully failed to
                                                                           (ii) contrary to the principle of non-discrimination
      disclose information requested in circumstances where
                                                                                contained in Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey
      had the person received the information he would
                                                                                Agreement;
      have set aside only eligible land, is the imposition of
      penalties under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC)
      No 3887/92 (2) for this reason alone rendered                        (iii) unlawful after the expiry of the transitional
      unlawful;                                                                  period;
                                                                           (iv) otherwise unlawful;
(3) Whether or not the failure by the competent
      authorities to disclose the information referred to in
      question 1(i) above was lawful or unlawful, are they                 inasmuch as it limits the scope of Article 12 of the
      entitled to use against a person information which,                  EEC-Turkey Agreement?
      despite requests for same, they had refused to supply
      to that person.
                                                                       (3) If the answer to question 2 is that there is no factor
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992
 1                                                                         affecting the validity of Article 6(1) of Decision 1/80,
    establishing an integrated administration and control system           is the phrase duly registered' as belonging to the
    for certain Community aid schemes (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992,                labour force of a Member State:
    p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December
    1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            (i)   to be interpreterd as meaning that a Turkish
    administration and control system for certain Community aid                  worker must comply with conditions imposed by
    schemes (OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36).                                       a Member State as part of its immigration laws,
                                                                                such as a condition restricting the duration of
                                                                                employment within that Member State, as well
                                                                                as satisfying the conditions of that Member
                                                                                State's employment law as to the legality,
                                                                                stability and permanence of his employment; or
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                      (ii) to be interpreted by reference to the concept of
Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 9 October                             lawful, permanent and stable employment under
1997, in the case of Secretary of State for the Home                             the applicable legislation of the Member State
              Department against Mustafa Saglam                                  relating to employment law; or
                        (Case C-370/98)
                                                                           (iii) to be interpreted as being satisfied, in any event,
                          (98/C 397/30)
                                                                                by the Turkish worker's name appearing on any
                                                                                systematic database maintained by the Member
                                                                                State for the purposes of social security which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           contains the details of every member of the
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                              workforce of that Member State?
Appeal Tribunal of 9 October 1997, which was received
at the Court Registry on 16 October 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the           (4) Is the answer to question 3, or to any part thereof,
Home Department against Mustafa Saglam, on the                             affected by Article 7 of Decision 2/76 and, if so, in
following questions:                                                       what way and with what result?


Avis juridique important

|

52003XX1024(02)

Court of Justice - Election of the President of the Court

Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0005 - 0005

Election of the President of the Court(2003/C 255/08)At their meeting on 7 October 2003, the Judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities elected, under Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Skouris as President of the Court for the period from 7 October 2003 to 6 October 2006.


20.2.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Removal from the register of Case T-357/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/65)
Ð annul the Commission Decision of 14 October 1998
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
     Treaty (in Case IV/F-3/33.310) in so far as such                                 (Language of the case: English)
     Decision relates to Napier Brown;
                                                                       By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
Ð cancel, or reduce the amount of, the fine imposed on                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     Napier Brown under the Decision;                                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Case T-357/93: W. J. Wyness and Sons v. Council of the
                                                                       European Union and Commission of the European
Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the                       Communities.
     proceedings;
                                                                       (1) OJ C 189, 13.7.1993.
Ð order that the Commission reimburse the applicant for
     any expenses incurred in providing security for the
     payment of the fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-525/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/66)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).                                          (Language of the case: English)
The application contests the Commission's finding that the
                                                                       By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
applicant has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
                                                                       removal from the register of Case T-525/93: Patrick
the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                       Griffin v. Council of the European Union and Commission
sugar in Great Britain', on the basis that the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities.
has failed to adduce any, or any sufficient, evidence of an
anti-competitive object' which can be imputed to the
applicant, and has failed to show any collusive behaviour              (1) OJ C 328, 4.12.1993.
in the market.
The Commission has also misapplied the law to the facts
and relied upon inconsistent reasoning in coming to its
decision.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-554/93 (1)
The applicant also submits that the Commission has                                            (1999/C 48/67)
misused its powers under Article 15 of Regulation No 17,
has misapplied its own Guidelines (2) on the method of
setting fines and is in breach of general principles of                               (Language of the case: English)
Community law, especially of the general principle of
proportionality, in fixing the level of fine imposed on the
applicant. The fine of ECU 1 800 000 is wholly unjustified             By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
and excessive in all the circumstances. For this reason the            Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
applicant submits, as an additional ground, that the fine              Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
should be cancelled or, at least, reduced.                             removal from the register of Case T-554/93: Alfred
                                                                       Thomas Edward Saint and Christopher Murray v. Council
(1) See also Cases T-202/98 (Tate & Lyle v. Commission) and            of the European Union and Commission of the European
    T-204/98 (British Sugar v. Commission).                            Communities.
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
    ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).                             (1) OJ C 338, 15.12.1993.


title: Case C-111/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others
   (Case C-111/12)
   2012/C 151/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ordini degli Ingegneri delle Province di Venezia, di Padova, di Treviso, di Vicenza, di Verona e Provincia, di Rovigo e di Belluno

      Respondents: Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia, Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori, Alessandro Mosconi, Comune di S. Martino Buon Albergo, Ordine degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori della Provincia di Verona, Istituzione di Ricovero e di Educazione di Venezia (IRE), Ordine degli Architetti di Venezia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC, (1) which for a transitional period allow nationals of other Member States holding qualifications specifically mentioned to practise in the architectural sector, preclude Italy from lawfully operating an administrative practice having as its legal basis Article 52, second indent, first part, of Royal Decree No 2537 of 1925, which specifically reserves certain operations relating to buildings of artistic interest exclusively to persons holding the qualification of ‘architect’ or to persons who demonstrate that they have completed courses in the heritage sector specific to cultural assets and ancillary assets in addition to the requirements authorising general access to the provision of architectural services within the terms of Directive 85/384/EEC?

               2.

               In particular, may that administrative practice consist in subjecting professionals from Member States other than Italy, even where they possess qualifications which in general make them suitable for practising as architects, to a specific examination of professional suitability, that is to say, to the authorisation to practise as an architect, which applies also to Italian professionals in the examination to establish their suitability to practise as architects, for the sole purposes of obtaining access to the professional activities referred to in Article 52, second indent, first part, of Royal Decree No [2537] of 1925?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15.


title: Case T-368/15: Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/64

         Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB
   (Case T-368/15)
   (2015/C 302/79)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcimos Consulting SMPC (Athens, Greece) (represented by: F. Rodolaki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its application initiating proceedings admissible;

               —

               declare the decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank on 28 June 2015 and 6 July 2015 void, and alternatively annul them, and

               —

               award to the applicant damages amounting to one euro.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) acted in violation of Article 14(4) of the satute of the European System of Centrals Banks (‘ESCB’), as the ECB’s refusal to the request made by the Bank of Greece to increase the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (‘ELA’) to Greek banks would not have interfered with the objectives and tasks of the ESCB.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) acted in violation of Articles 4 and 5 TEU, as it was acting ultra vires when rejecting the request by the Bank of Greece.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB acted taking into account political considerations and therefore violating Article 130 TFEU, which enshrines the independence of the ECB.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested ECB decisions do not meet the proportionality test, since the promotion of the smooth operation of payment systems provided for in Article 127 (2) TFEU is one of the four basic tasks to be carried out through the Eurosystem, while the extension of additional ELA to Greek banks with its potential minute effects on the implementation of the single monetary policy would have been less disruptive t the objectives of the ECB.


title: Opinion 1/15: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — European Parliament (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft agreement between Canada and the European Union — Transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to Canada — Appropriate legal bases — Article 16(2), point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU — Compatibility with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/3

         Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — European Parliament
   (Opinion 1/15) (1)

   ((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement between Canada and the European Union - Transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to Canada - Appropriate legal bases - Article 16(2), point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU - Compatibility with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
   (2017/C 309/03)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and D. Moore, Agents)

      Operative part of the Opinion

               1.

               The Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) TFEU and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU.

               2.

               The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data is incompatible with Articles 7, 8 and 21 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as it does not preclude the transfer of sensitive data from the European Union to Canada and the use and retention of that data.

               3.

               The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must, in order to be compatible with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:

                           (a)

                           determine in a clear and precise manner the PNR data to be transferred from the European Union to Canada;

                           (b)

                           provide that the models and criteria used in the context of automated processing of PNR data will be specific and reliable and non-discriminatory; provide that the databases used will be limited to those used by Canada in relation to the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime;

                           (c)

                           save in the context of verifications in relation to the pre-established models and criteria on which automated processing of Passenger Name Record data is based, make the use of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority during the air passengers’ stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and any disclosure of that data to other authorities, subject to substantive and procedural conditions based on objective criteria; make that use and that disclosure, except in cases of validly established urgency, subject to a prior review carried out either by a court or by an independent administrative body, the decision of that court or body authorising the use being made following a reasoned request by those authorities, inter alia, within the framework of procedures for the prevention, detection or prosecution of crime;

                           (d)

                           limit the retention of Passenger Name Record data after the air passengers’ departure to that of passengers in respect of whom there is objective evidence from which it may be inferred that they may present a risk in terms of the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime;

                           (e)

                           make the disclosure of Passenger Name Record data by the Canadian Competent Authority to the government authorities of a third country subject to the condition that there be either an agreement between the European Union and that third country equivalent to the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data, or a decision of the European Commission, under Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, covering the authorities to which it is intended that Passenger Name Record data be disclosed;

                           (f)

                           provide for a right to individual notification for air passengers in the event of use of Passenger Name Record data concerning them during their stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and in the event of disclosure of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority to other authorities or to individuals; and

                           (g)

                           guarantee that the oversight of the rules laid down in the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data relating to the protection of air passengers with regard to the processing of Passenger Name Record data concerning them will be carried out by an independent supervisory authority.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-68/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — FIFA v Commission (Television broadcasting — Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC — Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society — Football World Cup — Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law — Statement of reasons — Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Right to property)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — FIFA v Commission
   (Case T-68/08) (1)

   (Television broadcasting - Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society - Football World Cup - Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law - Statement of reasons - Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property)
   2011/C 103/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: initially by E. Batchelor, F. Young, Solicitors, A. Barav, D. Reymond, lawyers and F. Carlin, Barrister, and subsequently by E. Batchelor, A. Barav, D. Reymond, lawyers and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by F. Benyon, E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell and subsequently by F. Benyon and E. Montaguti, Agents, assisted by J. Flynn QC and M. Lester, Barrister)
   Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by C. Pochet, Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck and A. Joachimowicz, lawyers); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Jackson and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, Agents, assisted initially by T. de la Mare and subsequently by B. Kennelly, Barristers)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-437/15: Action brought on 4 August 2015 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/22

         Action brought on 4 August 2015 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission
   (Case T-437/15)
   (2015/C 328/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe (Copertino, Italy), Azienda Agricola Cairo & Doutcher di Cairo Uzi & C. Ss (Copertino, Italy), Ss Agricola Cairo Vito & Strafella Maria Rosa (Copertino, Italy), Vivai Del Salento Di Castrignano’ Carmelo Antonio (Sanarica, Italy), Società Agricola Castrignano’ Vivai Srl (Muro Leccese, Italy), Piante In Di Cipressa Carmine (Copertino, Italy), D’Elia Simone (Leverano, Italy), De Laurenzis Giuseppe (Copertino, Italy), Verde Giuranna Di Giuranna Alessio Mauro (Parabita, Italy), Maiorano Maurizio (Copertino, Italy), Vivai Mazzotta Di Mazzotta Carmine (Copertino, Italy), Società Agricola Mello Vivai di Mello Antonio Snc (Veglie, Italy), Mello Alessandro (Leverano, Italy), Mello Lucio (Carmiano, Italy), Romano Alessio Luigi (Giurdignano, Italy), Sansone Antonio (Copertino, Italy), Vivai Tarantino Ss (Cavallino, Italy), Verdesca Paolo (Copertino, Italy), Verdesca Giuseppe (Copertino, Italy), Hobby Flora di Miggiano Luigi (Poggiardo, Italy), Mauro Stefano (Muro Leccese, Italy), Miggiano Emanuele (Montesano Salentino, Italy), Miggiano Garden Center Sas di Miggiano Gianluigi & C. (San Cassiano, Italy), Miggiano Claudio (Maglie, Italy), Vivai Piante Rizzo Carmelo (Lecce, Italy), Cairo Antonio (Nardo’, Italy), Floricoltura Marti di Marti Sandro (Porto Cesareo, Italy), Azienda Agricola Mariani Fabrizio (Alliste, Italy), Giannotta Giuseppe (Leverano, Italy), Ligetta & Solida Srl (Alezio, Italy), Vivai Caputo Sas di Carbone R. & F. Ss (San Donaci, Italy), Perrone Cosimo (Leverano, Italy), Durante Giuseppina (Leverano, Italy), Società Agricola CO.VI.SER Srl (Arnesano, Italy), Miggiano Antonio (Sanarica, Italy), Castrignano’ Antonio (Sanarica, Italy), Stincone Giorgio (Sanarica, Italy), Zecca Fabio (Leverano, Italy), Società Agricola Florsilva Srl (Copertino, Italy) (represented by: G. Manelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should annul Implementing Decision No 2015/789/EU of 18 May 2015, published in the OJEU on 21 May 2015.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements, complete failure to give reasons, clear irrationality and infringement of the principle of proportionality.
               The applicants claim that:

                           —

                           The European Commission, despite acknowledging a series of studies carried out in Europe, has not taken into account their results and therefore does not allow for assessment of the suitability of the measures applied. Nor has the Commission explained why it decided to adopt a list of more than 180 specified plants which, though capable in the abstract of hosting Xylella fastidiosa, are not found in the province of Lecce. Furthermore, the Commission has not explained why it decided to list in Annex 1 over 180 species, including plants susceptible to ‘non-European’ isolates, which are clearly of no relevance to the territory in question.

                           —

                           The European Commission has not made clear why it considered it necessary to apply an indiscriminate ban on movement of the plants referred to in Annex 1 and remove at EU level the option of using alternative measures which could address the risk of spreading.

                           —

                           The European Commission has not expressly indicated what EU provision might justify the adoption of the implementing decision. Nor has it explained why it has deviated from the principle of subsidiarity, in a situation where the Member State not only has competence but has used its powers in that respect. It has not explained why the decision should be considered proportionate to the objective pursued, nor has it made a comparison or expressly weighed up the interests at stake.

               2.

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements from another perspective, complete failure to give reasons, clear irrationality and infringement of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           According to the applicants, it is not clear what scientific assumptions serve as the basis for the prohibition on moving specified plants once they have been declared pathogen-free following the appropriate scientific analysis. Nor is it clear why a plant which has spent part of its growth cycle outside screen-house systems may not be introduced into other systems to complete its life cycle, in order that it may subsequently be offered for sale.

               3.

               Infringement of Articles 5(3) and (4) of the Treaty and the legal rules governing its application, infringement of the principle of subsidiarity and infringement of the principle of proportionality.
               According to the applicants:

                           —

                           The EU decision is unlawful with specific reference to Article 6, entitled ‘Eradication measures’. The provision is incongruous and disproportionate since it applies to healthy plants or only to plants suspected of infection within a hundred metre radius of the site of the infected plant. That restriction makes no sense from a scientific point of view and, in particular, is disproportionate to the intended objective.

                           —

                           The EU decision is also unlawful with specific reference to Article 9, entitled ‘Movement of specified plants within the Union’, since it imposes an indiscriminate and unjustified ban on movement irrespective of the plant’s health status. This is all the more serious in view of the fact that the ban in question applies both outside the demarcated area and inside it.

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

                           —

                           The EU decision is also unlawful with specific reference to Article 9(2)(d)(f) and (h) since, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, it requires a 200 m buffer zone around the site where the plants are grown and lays down a series of requirements for that zone. That derogation is clearly impracticable since the buffer zone around the growing site may be outside the control of nurseries, in all cases where that zone forms part of the property of third parties.


title: Case F-98/06: Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Lohiniva v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/45

         Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Lohiniva v Commission
   (Case F-98/06)
   (2006/C 281/81)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Risto Lohiniva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Teperi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 May 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

               —

               decide that the applicant continues to have the right to transfer to Finland 35 % of his net salary, an amount which is adjusted by the transfer coefficient for that country, from 16 January 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was transferring to Finland, his country of origin, a part of his salary, as multiplied by a coefficient, in accordance with Article 17 of Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations. In the context of a programme of exchange of officials between the Commission and the Member States, he was transferred to Finland during the years 2004 and 2005. During this period, the Commission paid him all of his salary in Finland, increased by the application of the transfer coefficient. In January 2006, upon his return to Brussels, the applicant was refused the right to resume the transfer to Finland of the part of his salary that he had been transferring before his move. In that regard, the administration pointed out that the abovementioned provision had been amended following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, and that the applicant did not satisfy the condition laid down in Article 17(2)(a) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations for the preservation of that benefit.
   In his application, the applicant submits that, since he benefited from the transfer both during the time of his posting to Finland and before, his case falls within the circumstances envisaged by Article 17(2)(a) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio - Sezione II - by orders of that court of 19 October 1994 in the case of (1) Radio Torre, (2) Rete A Srl, (3) Vallau Italiana Promomarket Srl, (4) Radio Italia Solo Musica Srl and Others, (5) GETE (Tele Nova), (6) Toscana TV and Othres, and (7) Nuova Antenna Tre SpA and Others v. Ministero delle Poste e Telecommunicazioni (Cases C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94, C-338/94 and C-339/94, C-21/95 and C-22/95)

text:
 No C 74/2           | EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25 . 3 . 95
     which tax is to be levied on the income received by him           with      the    Bundesanstalt      fur   Arbeit,   the      Bundes
     within its territory since that Article does not allow a          versicherungsanstalt fur Angestellte und Mr Borge Wandahl
    Member State, as regards the collection of direct taxes,           as joined parties in the main proceedings — on the
     to treat a national ofanother Member State employed in            interpretation of Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a) and (2 ) (b) (i ) of Council
    the territory ofthe first State in the exercise ofhis right of     Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
    freedom of movement less favourably than one of its                social security schemes to employed persons, to
    own nationals in the same situation.                               self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                       moving within the Community and Article 12a of Council
2 . Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as                    Regulation No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
    precluding the application of rules of a Member State              procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 ,
    under which a worker who is a national of, and resides             in the versions codified by Council Regulation (EEC )
    in, another Member State and is employed in the first              No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2) — the Court ( Second
    State is taxed more heavily than a worker who resides in           Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur),
    the first State and performs the same work there when,             G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
    as in the main action, the national of the second State            General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the
    obtains his income entirely or almost exclusively from             Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 February 1995, the
    the work performed in the first State and does not                 operative part of which is as follows:
    receive in the second State sufficient income to be subject
    to taxation there in a manner enabling his personal and             1 . the situation of a Danish worker, residing in Denmark
    family circumstances to be taken into account.                           and employed exclusively by an undertaking with its
                                                                             seat in Germany, who in the course of that employment
3 . Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as                          relationship, regularly, for several hours each week and
    precluding a provision in the legislation of a Member                    for a period not limited to twelve months pursues his
    State on direct taxation under which the benefit of                      activity partly in Denmark, falls under Article 14
    procedures such as annual adjustment of deductions at                    (2) (b) (i) of Council Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June
    source in respect of wages tax and the assessment by the                 19-71 on the application ' of social security schemes to
    administration ofthe tax payable on remuneration from                    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
    employment is available only to residents, thereby                       members of their families moving within the
    excluding natural persons who have no permanent                          Community.
    residence or usual abode on its territory but receive
    income there from employment.                                      2 . 'Activity' within the meaning of Article 14 (2) (b) (i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 covers the term
(!) OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .                                             'employed'.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 332, 18 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22. 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Second Chamber)
                      of 16 February 1995
in Case C-425/93 -reference for a preliminary ruling from             References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht): Calle              Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Sezione II — by
Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG v. Allgemeine                        orders of that court of 19 October 1994 in the case of ( 1 )
                                                                      Radio Torre, (2 ) Rete A Sri, (3 ) Vallau Italiana
  Ortskrankenkasse für den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg ( ! )
                                                                      Promomarket Sri, (4 ) Radio Italia Solo Musica Sri and
(Social Security for migrant workers — Determination of               Others, ( 5 ) GETE (Tele Nova), ( 6) ToscanaTV and Othres,
                   the legislation applicable)                        and ( 7) Nuova Antenna Tre SpA and Others v. Ministero
                          ( 95/C 74/03 )                                              delle Poste e Telecommunicazioni
                                                                      ( Cases C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94, C-338/94 and
                (Language of the case: German)                                        C-339/94, C-21/95 and C-22/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/04 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by orders of the Tribunale
In Case C-425/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, Sezione II ( Regional
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                    Administrative Court, Lazio, Second Chamber) of
Landessozialgericht (Higher Social Court, Schles                     1 9 October 1 994, which were received at the Court Registry
wig-Holstein ) ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the             on 12 December and 28 December 1994 and 30 January and
proceedings pending before that court between Calle                   1 February 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ( 1 )
Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG and Allgemeine                       Radio Torre ( C-328/94 ), (2 ) Rete A Sri ( C-329/94 ), ( 3 )
Ortskrankenkasse fur den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg,                   Vallau Italiana Promomarket Sri ( C-337/94 ), (4 ) Radio
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/3
Italia Solo Musica Sri and Others ( C-338/54 ), ( 5 ) GETE            received at the Court Registry on 4 January 1995 , for a
(Tele Nova ) ( C-339/94 ), ( 6 ) Toscana TV and Others                preliminary ruling in the case of Sparekassernes Datacenter
( C-21/95 ), and ( 7) Nuova Antenna Tre SpA and Others                v. Skatteministeriet on the following questions:
( C-22/95 ) v. Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni on
Questions 1 and 2 in Case C-337/94 and on Question 2 in               Question 1
the other abovementioned cases .
                                                                      Should Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 3 to 5 of the Sixth VAT
Question 1                                                            Directive (*) be interpreted as meaning that VAT exemption
                                                                      should be granted for services of a type described above in
Is Directive 89/552/EEC (*) and, in particular, Articles 1 ( b )      Paragraphs 3 and 5 ( 2 )?
and 18 thereof, to be construed as meaning that the
expression 'forms of advertisements such as direct offers to          In that connection is the   granting of exemption from VAT
the public' in Article 1 8 is used under Community law, for           under Article 13 B (d )      Nos 3 to 5 precluded where a
the purposes of raising the ceiling of advertising                    transaction within the       meaning of that provision is
concentration to 20 % of daily transmission time:                     performed, wholly or in     part, electronically ?
(a ) purely by way of example and is capable of covering              Question 2
      other forms of advertising as well, apart from spot
      advertising, including for the purposes of this case            The wording used in Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 1 and 2 of the VAT
      'telepromotions' which, while not containing 'offers to         directive is 'by the person granting [the credit]' (ved den
      the public', could none the less be treated in the same         person, som har ydet lanene ) and 'by the person who' is
      way as such offers on account of some of their inherent         granting the credit' (ved den person, der har ydet kreditten).
      characteristics (telepromotions themselves can be               That description is not employed in Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 3
                                                                      to 5 .
      identified by the fact that, while suitable breaks clearly
      distinguish them from their editorial context,
      nevertheless there is generally a 'more time-consuming'         Should any importance be attached to that difference in the
      element of continuity for the insertion of shows and/or         interpretation of Article 13 B ( d) Nos 3 to 5 ?
      games than in the case of spot advertising); or:
                                                                      Question 3
( b ) by way of explanation or definition (in accordance with
      Article 12 of the contested legislation), as meaning that       A. Is it significant as far as the application of Article 3 B ( d)
                                                                           Nos 3 to 5 is concerned whether transactions are
      the possibility of increasing the daily concentration of
      advertising to 20 % relates only to 'offers to the public'           performed by financial institutions or by others ?
      in the strict sense and not to forms of advertising such as
      'telepromotions' as well, precisely because they lack the       B. Is it significant as far as the application of Article 13
      qualifying characteristics of an 'offer'?                            B (d) Nos 3 to 5 is concerned whether the entire
                                                                           financial service is performed by a financial institution
                                                                           which has a relationship with a customer ?
Question 2
                                                                      C. If it is unnecessary for the application of Article 13 B ( d)
Is Directive 89/552/EEC, and in particular Article 17 ( 1 ) ( b )          Nos 3 to 5 that the financial institution itself should
thereof, to be interpreted as precluding altogether any forms              perform the entire service, can the financial institution
of sponsorship in which the sponsor's name and/or logo                     purchase transactions wholly or in part from another
may be shown during the programme at times other than the                  person with the effect that the services performed by
beginning and/or the end of the programme (as provided                     that other person are covered by Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 3
for, subject to certain derogations, by Article 4 of the                   to 5 , or may particular requirements be made of that
contested decree ), or as freely permitting repeated forms of              other person ?
sponsorship even during the programme itself?
                                                                      Question 4
(!) OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989 , p . 23 .
                                                                      How is the wording used in Article 13 B ( d) Nos 3 to 4
                                                                      'transactions . . . concerning' to be interpreted ?
                                                                      This question seeks to ascertain whether the words
                                                                      'transactions . . . concerning' are to be understood as
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by           meaning that VAT exemption should also be granted in
a decision of that court of 20 December 1994 in the case of           cases where a person either performs only a part of the
        Sparekassernes Datacenter v. Skatteministeriet                service or performs only some of the transactions within the
                           (Case C-2/95 )
                                                                      meaning of the Directive that are necessary for the supply of
                                                                      the complete financial service.
                            ( 95/C 74/05 )
                                                                      Question 5
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret              In interpreting Article 13 B ( d) Nos 3 to 5 should
 [Eastern Regional Court] of 20 December 1994, which was              significance.be attached to the fact that the taxable person


title: Case C-377/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 September 2009 — Françoise Hanssens-Ensch (administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Agenor SA) v European Community

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 September 2009 — Françoise Hanssens-Ensch (administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Agenor SA) v European Community
   (Case C-377/09)
   2009/C 312/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Françoise Hanssens-Ensch (administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Agenor SA)

      Defendant: European Community

      Question referred

   Is the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a liability action under Article 530 of the Belgian Companies Code, brought by an administrator in bankruptcy proceedings seeking an order that the European Community should make good the bankrupt company’s liabilities, on the ground that the Community had the de facto power to manage a commercial company and was guilty of serious misconduct in the management of that company which contributed to its bankruptcy, constitutes an action in non-contractual liability for the purposes of that provision of the Treaty?


title: Case T-223/12: Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Ntouvas v ECDC

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/25

         Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Ntouvas v ECDC
   (Case T-223/12)
   2012/C 227/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Sundbyberg, Sweden) (represented by: E. Mylonas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Stockholm, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 27 March 2012 of the defendant to refuse the applicant access to final reports of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement (obligation to state reasons), thereby infringing Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as:

                           —

                           The defendant stated only abstract and general reasons for refusing access to any, and all, reports it holds of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; it moreover failed to demonstrate that an overriding public interest in disclosure did not exist;

                           —

                           According to settled case-law, reasons stated for refusing access to documents must be concrete and individual, as well as specific and describe effectively the eventual interest prevailing over the applicant’s right of access, while demonstrating the non-existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties (Art. 15(3) TFEU) and of a rule of law (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) relating to their application, as:

                           —

                           By failing to state appropriate and sufficient reasons for refusing to disclose the requested documents, the defendant also breached its obligation under Articles 2(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 15(3) TFEU to grant the applicant access to the requested documents within 15 working days from registration of his confirmatory application.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2005 in Case T-29/02 Global Electronic Finance Management (GEF) SA v Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Counterclaim)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 March 2005
   in Case T-29/02 Global Electronic Finance Management (GEF) SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Non-performance of contract - Counterclaim)
   (2005/C 132/43)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-29/02: Global Electronic Finance Management (GEF) SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Storme and A. Gobien, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito, assisted by J. Stuyck) — application, based on an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, for an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 40 693 and issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 273 516, together with a counterclaim by the Commission that the applicant should be ordered to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 273 516, plus default interest at the rate of 7 % a year as from 1 September 2001 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger, P. Mengozzi, E. Martins Ribeiro and F. Dehousse, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the applicant's claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 40 693 and for the issue of a credit note for EUR 273 516;

               2.

               Upholds the Commission's counterclaim and, consequently, orders the applicant to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 273 516, plus default interest, at the annual statutory rate applicable in Belgium, from 1 September 2001 until full payment of the debt;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.


title: Case C-20/08 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1) — Distinctive character of the mark — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/14

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-20/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1) - Distinctive character of the mark - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2009/C 69/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: R. Böhm and U. Sander, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 in Case T-71/06 Enercon GmbH v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 rejecting the action for annulment of the examiner's decision refusing to register a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 — Distinctive character of a three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Enercon GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-359/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — Spain v Commission (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to give a decision)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-359/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to give a decision)
   2009/C 141/88
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Steiblyté and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3243 of 25 June 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund for the group of projects No 2001.ES.16.C.P.E.045 (Waste Management in Galicia — 2001 (Group II)) by Decision C(2001) 4193 of 20 December 2001

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision in the present action.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-690/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/37

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)
   (Case T-690/14)
   (2014/C 431/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark No 1 7 90  674

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2014 in Case R 2100/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(2) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-195/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2009 — Antwerpse Bouwwerken v European Commission (Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Construction of a reference materials production hall — Rejection of a tender — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract documents — Compliance of a tender with the conditions laid down in the contract documents — Exercise of the power to request clarification of tenders — Action for damages)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2009 — Antwerpse Bouwwerken v European Commission
   (Case T-195/08) (1)

   (Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Construction of a reference materials production hall - Rejection of a tender - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract documents - Compliance of a tender with the conditions laid down in the contract documents - Exercise of the power to request clarification of tenders - Action for damages)
   2010/C 24/83
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented initially by: J. Verbist and D. de Keuster, and subsequently by: J. Verbist, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and A. Vandervennet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and by M. Gelders, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for, firstly, annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in a restricted public procurement procedure concerning the construction of a reference materials production hall in the grounds of the Institut des matériaux et mesures de référence (Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements) in Geel (Belgium) and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, compensation for the damage purportedly suffered by the applicant by reason of that decision of the Commission

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief in Case T 195/08 R.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-342/96)

text:
No C 388/4         \_ EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21 . 12 . 96
Action brought on 16 October 1996 by the Kingdom of                        undertakings, and the competent bodies — Fogasa
Spain against the Commission of the European                               and the General Social Security Fund — have no
                         Communities                                       discretion whatsoever to apply, in such a way as to
                       Case C-342/96 )                                     favour specific undertakings, any other higher or
                                                                           lower rate of interest than that laid down by law
                        ( 96/C 388/07 )                                    for all statutory obligations .
An action against the Commission of the European                       — Since it is nowhere provided in the legislation that
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     amounts over and above the statutory rate must be
the European Communities on 16 October 1996 by the                         paid into public funds in respect of deferred
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Paloma Plaza Garcia,                      payment of social security debts or repayment of
Abogado del Estado, of the Legal Service for Community                     wages paid out by Fogasa, Tubacex and Acerias de
Affairs, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   Alava have not received any aid from any funds,
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard                           whether of State or any other origin ( not even
Emmanuel Servais .                                                         employers' contributions which Fogasa receives
                                                                           under Article 3 of Royal Decree 505/85 and
                                                                           Article 33 of the Employees' Statute ), nor have any
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                sums which might lawfully belong to those public
                                                                           funds been prevented from being paid in, since the
—- annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 2384 final of                          statutory rules have been applied quite simply
    30 July 1996 concerning State aid granted to                           without any interference or exception, and no
    Compañía Española de Tubos por Extrusión SA at                         sums which by law should have been paid into
    Llodio (Álava ), and                                                   those funds have been taken away from them or
                                                                           prevented from being paid in.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       — There has been no distortion of competition .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Both the social security authorities and Fogasa
The contested decision finds that State aid has been
                                                                           have acted in the same way as a private creditor
                                                                           would have done in order to recover the debts
granted as a result of interest being applied at the                        owed to them .
statutory rate on the repayment agreements for sums paid
out by the Fondo de Garantfa Salarial (Wages Guarantee
Fund — Fogasa ) to the employees of Tubacex and its
subsidiary Acerias de Alava, and of those undertakings
being allowed to pay their social security debts by
deferred instalments, on the ground that the rate applied is
lower than the average rate on the private banking                 Action brought on 17 October 1996 by the Commission
market.                                                            of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
— Infringement of Article 118 of the EC Treaty: in                                         ( Case C-344/96 )
    accordance with Article 118 of the EC Treaty, only the                                   ( 96/C 388/08 )
    Spanish legislature has the power to lay down Spanish
    social security legislation; Article 20 of Royal
    Legislative Decree 1/1994 of 20 June 1994, which
    forms part of that legislation, regulates deferment of         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    payment and payment by instalments of debts in                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    respect of social security contributions and surcharges        Communities on 17 October 1996 by the Commission of
    thereon, providing that they are to bear interest at a         the European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
    certain rate .                                                 Borchardt, a member of its Legal Service, with an address
                                                                   for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                                                                   de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
    Also in accordance with Article 118 of the EC Treaty,          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    only the Spanish legislature has the power to lay down
    Spanish employment law. The payment of employees'
    salaries by the Fogasa, the very existence of that body        The applicant claims that the Court should:
    and the manner in which it operates serve to provide
    wage guarantees and are statutory and mandatory
    conditions in employment contracts, and the governing          1 . declare that, by failing to take within the prescribed
    legislation forms an integral part of employment law.              period the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                       Directives 93/62/EEC f 1 ), 93/63/EEC ( 2), 93/64/
— Incorrect application of Article 92 of the EC Treaty:                EEC ( 3 ), 93/78/EEC (4 ), 93/79/EEC (5 ) and 94/3/
                                                                       EC ( 6 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
    — The application of the statutory interest rate                   fulfil its obligations under those Directives and under
        is a general measure which applies for all                     the EC Treaty;


title: Case T-692/15: Action brought on 25 November 2015 — HTTS v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/28

         Action brought on 25 November 2015 — HTTS v Council
   (Case T-692/15)
   (2016/C 059/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 2 516 221,50 for material and non-material loss suffered due to the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons, entities and bodies in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 and in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay interest for late payment in the amount of two percent over the rate of interest set by the European Central Bank for the principal refinancing operation from 17 October 2015 until payment in full of the above amount;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which it claims that the Council — which unlawfully included it in the list of persons, entities and bodies all of whose funds and economic resources were frozen — infringed provisions which protect individual interests and which do not confer discretion on it.
   The applicant suffered material and non-material loss as a direct consequence of the restrictive measures that the Council unlawfully imposed on it.


title: Case C-169/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Ltd

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-169/16)
   (2016/C 191/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Miguel José Moreno Osacar

      Respondent: Ryanair Ltd

      Questions referred

   Taking into account:

               —

               the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012 in Mahamdia (C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46),

               —

               the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State,

               —

               the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the present order for reference,

               —

               the criterion derived from the concept of ‘home base’ (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews,

               —

               the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference,

         may the concept of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted as being comparable to that of ‘home base’, defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 as ‘the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned’, for the purpose of determining the Contracting State (and thus the jurisdiction) on whose territory an employee habitually carries out his work where the employee is employed as a member of the air crew of an airline, subject to the laws of a Member State of the European Union, that transports passengers internationally by air throughout the territory of the European Union, since that criterion of connection, based on the ‘home base’, in the sense of ‘the effective centre of the work relationship’, inasmuch as the employee systematically begins and ends his working day at that place, organises his daily work there and, throughout the period of his contractual relationship maintains his residence there, is the criterion which both indicates the closest connection with a Contracting State and ensures the most satisfactory protection of the weaker party in the contractual relationship?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2001 in Case T-115/99: Système européen promotion (SEP) SARL v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Rejection of a complaint — Action for annulment)

text:
C 150/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.5.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              G. Marenco and L. Guérin and, subsequently, Mr Marenco and
                                                                         F. Siredey-Garnier) — application for annulment of the
                      of 14 February 2001                                Commission decision of 8 March 1999 rejecting a complaint
                                                                         by the applicant based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (now Article 81 EC) and on Commission Regulation (EC)
in Case T-62/99: Société de distribution de mécaniques et
                                                                         No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of
d’automobiles (Sodima) v Commission of the European
                                                                         Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor
                         Communities (1)                                 vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145,
                                                                         p. 25) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Rejection                composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
           of a complaint — Action for annulment)                        A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
                                                                         the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 February 2001, in
                         (2001/C 150/45)                                 which it:
                                                                         1.    Dismisses the application.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-62/99, Société de distribution de mécaniques et
d’automobiles (Sodima), a company in judicial liquidation,
established in Istres (France), represented by J.-C. Fourgoux,           (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
G. Marenco and L. Guérin and, subsequently, Mr Marenco and
F. Siredey-Garnier) — application for annulment of the
Commission decision of 5 January 1999 rejecting a complaint
by the applicant based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81 EC) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 February 2001, in                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it:
                                                                                of 13 February 2001
1.    Dismisses the application.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             in Case T-2/00: N v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                         (Officials — Social security — Accident insurance —
                                                                         Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Definition of ‘accident’
                                                                                — HIV infection)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/47)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      of 14 February 2001
in Case T-115/99: Système européen promotion (SEP)                       In Case T-2/00: N, an official of the Commission of the
   SARL v Commission of the European Communities (1)                     European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         J.-L. Dupont and M.-A. Lucas, avocats, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Rejection
                                                                         Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
           of a complaint — Action for annulment)
                                                                         for annulment of the refusal of the Commission to recognise
                                                                         as an accident, within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff
                         (2001/C 150/46)                                 Regulations of the officials of the European Communities and
                                                                         Article 2 of the Rules on protection against the risk of
                                                                         occupational disease and of accident, infection of the applicant
                   (Language of the case: French)                        by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and a claim for
                                                                         damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
In Case T-115/99, Système européen promotion (SEP) SARL,                 composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
established in Saint- Vit (France), represented by J.-C. Fourgoux,       J.D. Cooke, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against               for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 February 2001, in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                which it: