title: Case C-67/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Varna (Bulgaria), lodged on 7 February 2017 — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Varna (Bulgaria), lodged on 7 February 2017 — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva
   (Case C-67/17)
   (2017/C 112/39)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Rayonen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Todor Iliev

      Defendant: Blagovesta Ilieva

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an action between former spouses on the division of movable property acquired during the marriage as joint property of the spouses constitute a legal dispute relating to rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1)?

               2.

               Is a dispute concerning the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage, but registered with the competent national authorities only in the name of one of the spouses, excluded from its scope under Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001?

               3.

               Which court has jurisdiction over a dispute between former spouses on the ownership of immovable property acquired during their civil marriage, when the spouses are nationals of an EU Member State, but it has been established in the proceedings that at the time of entering the marriage, acquisition of the property, ending the marriage and the application for division of the property after the marriage had ended, they had their place of residence in another Member State?

      (1)  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).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-290/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 295/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                     Is subheading 'ex 0207 41 11 ' in sector 8 of the Annex to
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of                       Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3846/87 of 17 De
16 July 1997 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda                  cember 1987 establishing an agricultural product
             Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj                        nomenclature for export refunds ( OJ L 366, 24. 12 . 1987,
                                                                          p. 1 ), valid for the period from 21 June 1988 to
                          ( Case C-289/97 )
                                                                          16 January 1989, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                             ( 97/C 295/38 )                              term 'quarters' ( of chicken) also includes cuts of poultry
                                                                          not yet wholly separated from each other ('posteriori') as
                                                                          described more precisely in the grounds of this order ( J )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 1 ) Divided at right angles to the backbone, not longitudinally.
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice
di Pace di Genova (Magistrate's Court, Genoa ), of 16 July
1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eridania SpA
against Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj
on the following questions :
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                          Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by
1 . Is Regulation (EC ) No 1580/96 (») of 30 July 1996,                   the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Communities on 16 August 1996, and in particular                    Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      Article 1 ( f) thereof, valid, above all having regard to                                  European Communities
      the arguments set out in paragraph 3 of the section of
      this order entitled ' Law'?                                                                    ( Case C-291/97 P)
                                                                                97/C 295/40 )
2. If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', is
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ( 2 ) of 30 June 1981 ,               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       Communities on 1 July 1981 , and in particular,                    European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ) thereof as subsequently         Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      amended, valid, and in consequence is Regulation ( EC )             European Communities was brought before the Court of
      No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 valid, with particular                   Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
       reference to Article 1 ( f), especially in the light of the         by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, represented by Vincent
       arguments set out in paragraph 4 of the section of this             Lurquin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       order entitled ' Law '?
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                           Fort Rheinsheim .
(') OJ L 206 , 16 . 8 . 1996 , p . 9 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                — set aside the judgment appealed against,
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in
the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v.
                   Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                              — declare the original application admissible and well
                                                                                founded .
                           ( Case C-290/97 )
                              ( 97/C 295/39 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    — Irregularity         of    the   procedure     establishing     the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate                           composition of the Invalidity Committee: the Court of
of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 26 June                      First Instance wrongly considered that the procedure
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                               whereby the President of the Court of Justice appoints,
4 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           on his own initiative, a doctor to represent the staff
 Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt                           member on the Invalidity Committee should not
 Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:                                        involve the consultation of that staff member. Whilst it


title: Case T-658/13 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2013 by BP against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 September 2013 in Case F-38/12 BP v FRA

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/11

         Appeal brought on 10 December 2013 by BP against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 September 2013 in Case F-38/12 BP v FRA
   (Case T-658/13 P)
   2014/C 61/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment of 30 September 2013 in case F-38/12;

               —

               Consequently, annul the decision not to renew the appellant’s contract and to transfer her to another department, dated 27 February 2012; order the defendant to compensate the appellant’s material prejudice estimated at 1 320 euros per month from September 2012, to which must be added late interest at the key rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points; and order the defendant to compensate the appellant’s moral prejudice evaluated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 euros; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs in the first instance and appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               Regarding the decision of non-renewal of the appellant’s contract

                           —

                           Firstly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal violated the principle of the rights of defence and the right to be heard and of access to relevant information embodied in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and it distorted the evidence;

                           —

                           Secondly, the appellant alleges that by refusing to authorise a second exchange of pleadings and the production of relevant evidence in response to the observations of the defendant and at the hearing, the Civil Service Tribunal violated the appellant’s rights of defence, committed a manifest error of assessment and denied to the appellant a fair trial;

                           —

                           Thirdly, the appellant alleges a manifest error made by the Civil Service Tribunal in the assessment of the first plea alleging a manifest error of assessment in the decision of the defendant and distortion of the facts and evidence;

                           —

                           Fourthly, the appellant alleges a manifest error in the assessment of the pleas on retaliation and misuse of powers, distortion of the facts and evidence.

               2.

               Regarding the decision of reassignment

                           —

                           Firstly, the appellant alleges an illegal assessment by the Civil Service Tribunal of the second plea, alleging irregular and unilateral amendment of an essential element of the contract of service and a discrepancy between post and grade, and a distortion of evidence;

                           —

                           Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the assessment of the appellant’s argument in relation to the absence of hearing by the defendant before the decision to transfer and a violation of the rights of defence.

               3.

               The appellant alleges a violation of Article 87(2) and 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the civil Service Tribunal regarding the costs, and a violation of the duty to state reasons.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2002 in Case T-241/00: Azienda Agricola "Le Canne" Srl against Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Reduction of Community financial assistance — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
C 156/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 30 January 2002                                                           of 5 March 2002
in Cases T-212/00: Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl v Com-                    in Case T-241/00: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl against
           mission of the European Communities (1)                               Commission of the European Communities (1)
(State Aid — Decision declaring aid compatible with the                   (Agriculture — Reduction of Community financial assist-
common market — Action for annulment — Recipient                                        ance — Obligation to state reasons)
company — Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                          Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/38)
                         (2002/C 156/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-241/00: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl, established
                                                                          in Porto Viro (Italy), represented by G. Carraro, F. Mazzonetto
In Case T-212/00, Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl, established in            and G. Arendt, lawyers, with an address for service in
Sesto Campano (Italy), represented by I. Van Bael and F. Di               Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
Gianni, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities                 ties (Agents: E. de March, L. Visaggio and A. Dal Ferro) —
(Agents: V. Di Bucci, A. Abate and G.B. Conte): Application               application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision
for the partial annulment of Commission Decision SG(2000)D/               C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000 reducing the assistance granted
103923 of 30 May 2000 authorising State aid amounting to                  to the applicant in respect of project I/16/90/02, and second,
LIT 29176,69 million in favour of Nuove Industrie Molisane                for damages — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in order to carry out investment at Sesto Campano (Molise,                composed of B. Vesterdor, President, N. Forwood and H. Legal,
Italy), the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
(First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Ves-               has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it:
terdorf, President, M. Vilaras, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and
N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in
which it:                                                                 1.    Annuls Decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000;
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                          3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those of the
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                    application for interim relief.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.                                               (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-33/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 20 January 2016 — A Oy

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 20 January 2016 — A Oy
   (Case C-33/16)
   (2016/C 111/16)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A Oy

      Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 148(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning the loading and unloading of cargo onto and off a vessel are supplies of services made to meet the direct needs of the cargo of vessels for the purposes of Article 148(a)?

               2.

               Given the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka, according to which the exemption provided for in those rules could not be extended to services supplied at an earlier stage in the commercial chain, is Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that applies also to the services at issue in the case in main proceedings in which the service supplied by A Oy’s subcontractor in the first phase of operations concerns a service which has a direct physical relationship to the cargo, which A Oy invoices to the forwarding or transport company?

               3.

               In light of the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Elmeka, according to which the exemption provided for by the rules in question apply only to services which are supplied to the ship owner, is Article 148(d) of VAT Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption cannot apply if the service is supplied to the cargo owner such as the exporter or importer of the cargo concerned?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-178/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Ahmed Adem and Hamrin Mosa Rashi v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Ahmed Adem and Hamrin Mosa Rashi v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-178/08)
   (2008/C 197/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ahmed Adem and Hamrin Mosa Rashi

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 also require that, in the country of the refugee's nationality,

                           (a)

                           an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in that regard if protection can be assured only with the help of multinational troops,

                           (b)

                           the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83, which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

                           (c)

                           the security situation be stable and the general living conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

               3.

               In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances founding persecution to be

                           (a)

                           measured against the standard of probability applied for recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

                           (b)

                           assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 9 October 1997 in Case C-67/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie): Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland) BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Copiers and fax machines - Classification in the combined nomenclature)

text:
C 357/6                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( Second Chamber)
                         of 2 October 1997                                                      of 9 October 1997
in     Case    C-208/96: Commission of the European                    in Case C-67/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')                      the Tariefcommissie ): Rank Xerox Manufacturing
                                                                       (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                 Accijnzen (^
        Directive 92/119/EEC — Failure to transpose)
                                                                       (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Copiers
                            ( 97/C 357/10 )                            and fax machines — Classification in the combined
                                                                                nomenclature)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/11 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-208/96 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Hubert van Vliet) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a                     In Case C-67/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and 'administrative provisions            of the EC Treaty from the Tariefcommissie
necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/119/EEC                  (Administrative Court for Customs and Excise )
of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community                      (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
measures for the control of certain animal diseases and                pending before that court between Rank Xerox
specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease ( OJ             Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV and Inspecteur der
L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has              Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the interpretation of
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the             Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 of 26 July
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                   1991 amending Annex I to Council Regulation ( EEC)
                                                                       No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P.              on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ L 259, 16 . 9 . 1991 ,
Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              p. 1 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber), composed of: R.
judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it:                               Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
                                                                       G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
                                                                       General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                       ruled :
 1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general
                                                                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July
      Community measures for the control of certain animal
                                                                       1991 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
      diseases and specific measures relating to swine                 No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
      vesicular disease, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed             on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as
      to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 thereof;
                                                                       meaning that apparatuses such as the Rank Xerox 3010
                                                                       and Rank Xerox 3010 Editor, comprising a scanning
                                                                       device (scanner), a digital storage device (memory) and a
                                                                       printing device (laser printer), fall within sub-heading
2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     9009 12 00 of that Regulation.
 (') OJ C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .                                         (*) OJ C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .


title: Case T-93/17: Action brought on 14 February 2017 — Duferco Long Products v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/38

         Action brought on 14 February 2017 — Duferco Long Products v Commission
   (Case T-93/17)
   (2017/C 121/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Duferco Long Products SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and M. Favart, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

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

               —

               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 manifest errors of law and appraisal on the part of the Commission in the examination of the pari passu nature of the sixth measure declared incompatible with the common market. This plea is divided into two parts.

                           —

                           first part, according to which, contrary to the Commission’s assessment, the transaction at issue was indeed carried out pari passu;

                           —

                           second part, according to which the Commission’s assessment of the pari passu nature of the transaction is vitiated by serious errors of calculation and appraisal.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and appraisal on the part of the Commission in the examination of the private investor in a market economy test. This plea is divided into four parts:

                           —

                           first part, according to which, in confusing the applicability of the private investor in a market economy test with the application thereof, the Commission erred in law and incorrectly applied that test;

                           —

                           second part, according to which, in not carrying out a comparative analysis or using another assessment method in respect of the transaction at issue, the Commission infringed the principle of the private investor in a market economy as well as the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the appraisal of that test;

                           —

                           third part, according to which the Commission breached the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the assessment of the private investor in a market economy test;

                           —

                           fourth part, according to which the Walloon Region provided a large number of documents demonstrating that Foreign Strategic Investment Holding, a subsidiary of Société Wallonne de Gestion et de Participations, acted in the manner of a private investor in a market economy.


title: Case C-145/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Validity — Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 — Headings 8703 and 8711 — Three-wheeled motor vehicle called ‘Spyder’)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
   (Case C-145/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Validity - Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 - Headings 8703 and 8711 - Three-wheeled motor vehicle called ‘Spyder’))
   (2017/C 112/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that a three-wheeled vehicle, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, fitted with tyres manufactured for three-wheeled motorcycles but similar to those for motor cars, steered using a handlebar and fitted with a steering system based on the Ackermann principle, falls within heading 8703 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-719/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
   (Case T-719/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))
   (2016/C 392/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tri Ocean Energy (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, P. Saini QC, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 59) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 9), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they apply to Tri Ocean Energy;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tri Ocean Energy.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014


title: Case T-557/11: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2014  — Elsid and Others v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/72

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2014 — Elsid and Others v Commission
   (Case T-557/11) (1)

   2014/C 315/118
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-300/04: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2007 — easyJet v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2007 — easyJet v Commission
   (Case T-300/04) (1)

   (2007/C 247/67)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/43/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 34/3
1. Article 36(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of                  Nana Dafniou and I. Chalkias) — application for a declaration
    13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by                   that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws,
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
    with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on      with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the
    crossing an internal frontier of the Community, in conjunction         hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 1993 L 175, p. 1), the Hellenic
    with Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
    No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the                      — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
    implementation of the Community transit procedure and for              acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and
    certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Com-          H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
    mission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, is to              eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October
    be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the           1999, in which it:
    office of departure belongs may recover duty on import only if it
    has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which       1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    to prove where the offence or irregularity was actually committed          laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    and such proof has not been provided within that period.                   comply with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on
                                                                               the hygiene of foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
2. The third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation                       its obligations under that directive;
    No 222/77 as amended by Regulation No 474/90 is to be
    interpreted as not applying to a case in which the Member State        2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    to which the office of departure belongs has recovered duty in
    respect of goods cleared for the Community transit procedure even
    though the principal has not been set a time-limit for furnishing      (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
    proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually
    committed, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of Regulation
    No 1062/87 as amended by Regulation No 1429/90, and in
    such a case the refund of the duty irregularly recovered is not
    subject to the condition that the duty due from the principal has
    been paid in the Member State where the offence was committed.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 94/45/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                        of 21 October 1999                                                          prescribed period)
in Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                                (2000/C 34/06)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations —                                         (Language of the case: French)
Directive 93/43/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
                         prescribed period)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2000/C 34/05)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communities
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                           bourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to adopt and/or to communicate to the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/45/EC
                                                                           of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European
In Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communities                   Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertak-
(Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                 ings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the


title: Case T-514/15: Action brought on 1 september 2015 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych/Commission

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/31

         Action brought on 1 september 2015 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych/Commission
   (Case T-514/15)
   (2015/C 371/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2015, GESTDEM 2015/1291, refusing the applicant access to the detailed opinion issued by the European Commission in the framework of the notification procedure 2014/537/PL,

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 17 July 2015, GESTDEM 2015/1291, refusing the applicant access to the detailed opinion issued by the Republic of Malta in the framework of the notification procedure 2014/537/PL,

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Art. 4(2) of regulation (EC) no 1049/2001 (1) by refusing access to the detailed opinion of the Commission

                           —

                           The third indent of Art. 4(2) of regulation 1049/2001 cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that a document in the Commission’s possession cannot be disclosed if this could undermine the purpose of any inspection, investigation or audit, even if the document was not drafted in the framework, or for the purposes, of such an inspection, investigation or audit.

                           —

                           No general presumption that disclosing a document would undermine the protection of the purpose of infringement proceedings can be applicable to a document produced in the framework of a notification procedure, given that no such general presumption exists with respect to such a procedure.

                           —

                           The Commission’s claim that its opinion concerns a measure intended to remedy an infringement of EU law and that it includes references to the Commission’s letter of formal notice initiating infringement proceedings and an appraisal of the notified measure in light of those proceedings, does not demonstrate the existence of any general presumption that the detailed opinion should not be disclosed.

                           —

                           The Commission’s position is inconsistent insofar as it bases its decision on a general presumption, but at the same time relies on the specifics of ‘this particular case’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 4(6) of regulation 1049/2001 and of Art. 296 TFEU by refusing partial access to the Commission’s detailed opinion

                           —

                           In any case, the Commission should have disclosed its detailed opinion in part, i.e. after having removed any references to the letter of formal notice concerning the infringement proceedings.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 4(2) of regulation 1049/2001 by refusing access to the Commission’s detailed opinion even though an overriding public interest in disclosure exists

                           —

                           Given that the detailed opinion concerned a measure that was already being processed in Parliament and that it led to that measure being amended, its disclosure is necessary in order for members of Parliament to understand the reason why they are asked by the government to amend the bill presented to them. Therefore an overriding public interest in disclosure exists. The democratic process cannot function correctly if the Parliament is asked to implement the Commission’s opinions, when these are not disclosed.

                           —

                           Since the legality of the notification process and, therefore, the enforceability of the adopted bill may depend on the text of the Commission’s opinion, an overriding public interest in its disclosure exists based on the right to legal certainty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of recital 3 and Art. 8(4) of directive 98/34/EC (2) by refusing access to the Commission’s detailed opinion

                           —

                           The refusal to disclose the detailed opinion is incompatible with the nature of directive 98/34, which is based on transparency; this is especially true where the Member State concerned did not invoke the confidentiality clause under Art. 8(4) of the directive.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Art. 4(2), of Art. 4(5) and of Art. 4(6) of regulation 1049/2001 by refusing access to Malta’s detailed opinion

                           —

                           The refusal to grant access to the opinion may not be based on the mere fact that the Commission intends to take Malta’s detailed opinion into account when taking a decision as to ongoing infringement proceedings, or that it has placed that opinion in the file of those proceedings.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 296 TFEU by refusing access to Malta’s detailed opinion.

                           —

                           The Commission originally refused to rule on the disclosure of Malta’s opinion on grounds that could only be interpreted as meaning that the decision will depend on whether the Commission accepts the judgment of the General Court in case T-402/12, Carl Schlyter v Commission, under which detailed opinions are subject to disclosure, or rejects and, consequently, appeals it. However, the Commission did not appeal that judgment and refused disclosure on grounds that have nothing to do with it which the Commission itself must have considered insufficient, because otherwise it should have issued a negative decision even before the appeal period in case T-402/12 expired.

      (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)

      (2)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37)


title: Case C-12/05 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2005 by H. Meister against the judgment delivered on 28 October 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-76/03 between H. Meister and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/4

         Appeal brought on 18 January 2005 by H. Meister against the judgment delivered on 28 October 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-76/03 between
         H. Meister
       and
         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

   (Case C-12/05 P)
   (2005/C 93/08)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 October 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-76/03 between H. Meister and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 January 2005 by H. Meister, represented by P. Goergen, avocat.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               2.

               accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 (Case T-76/03), with the exception of paragraphs 202 to 208 of the contested judgment, namely the provisions stating that the President of OHIM committed a breach of his administrative duty such as to give rise to a right to reparation;

               3.

               give final judgment on the dispute, if it does not remit the case to the Court of First Instance, and grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

               4.

               order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings before both courts.

         Pleas on appeal and main arguments:
   The Court of First Instance, first, gave its reasoning in an erroneous, inadequate and contradictory manner and, second, made errors in law.
   First of all, the defects in the Court's reasoning amount to a clear distortion of the facts. The Court's selection of the matters of fact was arbitrary and its assessment of them inaccurate. Secondly, those defects are the result of an incorrect legal qualification of the contested decision, in particular the refusal to classify it as a disciplinary measure. The Court made a further error in its reasoning in finding that the administration had a broad discretion when evaluating the interest of the service, which renders ineffective the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, and in stating that judicial review concerning observance of the condition relating to the interest of the service is limited to the question as to whether or not the appointing authority used its discretionary powers in a clearly erroneous manner. The Court also carried out an inaccurate assessment of the interest of the service and failed to take the welfare of officials into account. The Court also misapplied the principle of proportionality in deciding that the contested decision complied with the principle, although the decision was neither an appropriate measure, nor the least restrictive one. The Court made a further error in assessing the equivalence or comparability of the new position with the former post. In fact, if the Court's reasoning were accepted, every transfer related to the current grade would comply with the principle of assignment to an equivalent post. Finally, the Court failed to indicate which elements it took into account when it assessed the non-material damage suffered by the appellant.
   The Court also made a number of errors in law. First of all, it exempted the transfer decision from the duty to state reasons in considering it a mere measure of internal organisation, even though that duty has been held to constitute a general principle of law. Secondly, the Court made an error of law in finding there to be no infringement of the right to a fair hearing to the detriment of the appellant. The Court also made an error of law in failing to make a clear statement on the scope of the right to freedom of expression, on which the appellant should have been able to rely in this instance. Finally, the Court made an error of law concerning the application of the rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard before the transfer decision was made.


title: Case C-419/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
6.1.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 4/3
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
the Court of Justice should:                                              mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                Republic
1.    Declare that
      —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules                                (Case C-419/00)
            for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
            for the fishing years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994;
                                                                                (2001/C 4/05)
      —     by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
            rules on the conservation of species through suf-
            ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
            inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
            and recordal of catches;
                                                                          Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
      —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels           Adviser, and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
            flying the French flag or registered in France when           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
            the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-             C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
            ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting                Kirchberg.
            fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
            had been exceeded by far, in the 1991, 1992,
            1993 and 1994 fishing years;
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court of Justice should:
      —     by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
            ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
            for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
            the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 fishing years;                  1.   Declare that
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 —    by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules
      under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, (1)                         for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
      Article 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC)                               for the fishing years 1995 and 1996;
      No 2241/87, (2) Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of
      Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3) and Article 9(2) of
      Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (4).
                                                                               —    by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
                                                                                rules on the conservation of species through suf-
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                   ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
                                                                                inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
                                                                                and recordal of catches;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               —    by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            flying the French flag or registered in France when
relied upon in Case C-333/99 (5) concerning the same infringe-                      the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-
ments in 1988 and 1990.                                                             ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting
                                                                                fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
                                                                                had been exceeded by far, in the 1995 and 1996
                                                                                fishing years;
(1) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207 of 29.07.1987, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993                     —    by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
    establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries                ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
    policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).                                                   for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992                         the 1995 and 1996 fishing years;
    establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
    (OJ 1992 L 389, p, 1).
 5
( ) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 17.                                                      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Article 9(2) of Regulation TEC) No 3760/92 (1) and
                                                                               Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
                                                                               in conjunction with Regulations (EEC) Nos 3362/94 (3)
                                                                               and 3074/95 (4);
 ---pagebreak--- C 4/4                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.1.2001
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
                                                                           establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1)
                                                                       (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                   fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total
relied upon in Case C-333/99 (5) concerning the same infringe-             allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions under which
ments in 1988 and 1990.                                                    they may be fished (OJ 1994 L 363, p. 1).
                                                                       (4) Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 December 1995
                                                                           fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992                allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which
    establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture          they may be fished (OJ 1995 L 330, p. 1).
    (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1)                                              (5) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 17.


title: Case C-184/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus) — Uudenkaupungin kaupunki (VAT — Deduction of input tax — Capital goods — Immovable property — Adjustment of deductions)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus) — Uudenkaupungin kaupunki
   (Case C-184/04) (1)

   (VAT - Deduction of input tax - Capital goods - Immovable property - Adjustment of deductions)
   (2006/C 143/15)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uudenkaupungin kaupunki
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 13(C), Article 17(6) and Article 20 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax on immovable capital goods used in connection with transactions for which the taxable person subsequently opts to be taxable — National legislation under which the right to deduct is subject to exercising the right of option for taxation within six months from the bringing into use of the property
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 20 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the provisions of Article 20(5) thereof, it requires Member States to make provision for adjustment of deductions of value added tax on capital goods.

               2.

               Article 20 of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment provided for therein is also applicable where the capital goods were first used in non-taxable activity that was not eligible for deduction and were then used in activity, subject to value added tax during the adjustment period.

               3.

               The second subparagraph of Article 13(C) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which gives its taxable persons the right to opt for taxation of the letting of a property is not permitted by that provision to exclude deduction of value added tax on immovable property investments made before that right of option is exercised, where the application to exercise that option has not been made within six months of the property being brought into use.

               4.

               Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which gives its taxable persons the right to opt for taxation of the letting of a property is not permitted by that provision to exclude deduction of value added tax on immovable property investments made before that right of option is exercised, where the application to exercise that option has not been made within six months of the property being brought into use.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.


title: Case C-403/05: Action brought on  17 November 2005  by the European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/14

         Action brought on 17 November 2005 by the European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-403/05)
   (2006/C 10/29)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 November 2005 by the European Parliament, represented by R. Passos, E. Waldherr, and K. Lindahl, acting as Agents.
   The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision approving a project on the security of the borders of the Philippines, to be financed by budgetary line 19 10 02 of the general budget of the European Communities (Philippine Border Management Project; No ASIA/2004/016-924), adopted in compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America (1);

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament requests the annulment of the Commission's decision on the grounds that the Commission has exceeded its powers.
   The main aim of the contested decision is to combat terrorism by implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) on the fight against terrorism. By contrast, the aim of Regulation No 443/92 is to aid development by means of financial, technical and economic cooperation. The powers of execution delegated by that basic act give the Commission responsibility for ensuring the management of the financial and technical assistance, and for economic cooperation. A measure intended to help the government of the Philippines make its borders more secure, with the aim of combating terrorism, exceeds the powers of execution provided for in the basic act and is therefore illegal.
   The contested decision has not been published in the Official Journal. The European Parliament did not receive notice of its full text until 9 September 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 52, 27.02.1992, p. 1


title: Case C-354/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-354/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas)
   (2006/C 165/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Heller and B.Schima, agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ L 176, p. 57)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281 of 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-364/03: Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 21/36                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.                  Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
According to the applicant, the Commission has not                                KG against the Council of the European Union
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
                                                                                (Case T-364/03)
decision as at 11 July 2001.
(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the                                     (2004/C 21/77)
    State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
    financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against The Council of the European Union was
Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                           against Europol                                 Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
                                                                           Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
                                                                           MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                           (Case T-355/03)
                            (2004/C 21/76)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
                                                                                Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
                                                                                the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
                                                                                the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                        the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                         the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),                       procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.                                priate;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
                                                                                the procedure.
1)     annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
       complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
       and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;
2)     order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,               Pleas in law and main arguments
       including in any event the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
                                                                           manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
                                                                           China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra              tive anti-dumping duty on imports of leather handbags
step with effect from 1 July 2002.                                         originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
                                                                           1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an              0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.
                                                                           However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
                                                                           consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
                                                                           refunded.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/37
The applicant brought an application before the Court of First              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance (3) seeking the annulment of Regulation No 2380/98
insofar as the Council failed to give retroactive effect to the             —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 March
above amendment. By judgement dated 29 June 2000 (4) the                          2003 not to accept the applicant’s candidature for the
Court of First Instance annulled the contested provision.                         post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean,
Thereafter the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 133/2001                        Pacific’ (AIDCO.C), as a result of the appointing auth-
of 22 January 2001 (5) amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97                        ority’s decision of 8 January 2003 to appoint another
and granting retroactive effect to the provision in question. All                 person to that post;
of the applicant’s payments of duties imposed by Regulation
No 1567/97 were refunded to it.                                             —     in any event, orders the defendant to pay the costs.
By its present action the applicant seeks to obtain compen-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
sation in the form of interest on the amounts of import duty
which it initially paid and which were later refunded to it, as
well as in the form of legal expenses it incurred in the course             The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
of administrative proceedings before the Commission and the                 rejection of his candidature for the post of Director in the
German customs authorities.                                                 Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ (AIDCO.C).
                                                                            In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 7,
In support of its application the applicant submits that the                of the second paragraph of Article 25, and Articles 29(1)(a) and
Council acted illegally in refusing to abide by the consequences            45(1) of the Staff Regulations, irregularity in the administrative
of the review findings leading to Regulation 2380/98 and that               procedure prior to the contested decision, and disregard of
this illegal behaviour was of sufficient gravity as to give rise to         general legal principles, such as the protection of legitimate
liability under Article 288 EC.                                             expectations, equal treatment and career progression.
(1 ) OJ L 208, 2.8.1997, p. 31-43.                                          In that regard, the applicant submits, in particular, that his
(2 ) OJ L 296 , 5.11.1998, p. 1-5.                                          candidature was not considered fairly and that he was not, at
(3 ) Case no T-7/99, notified in OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 23.                 the very least, short listed without any statement of reasons,
(4 ) Notified in OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 17.                                 although the appointing authority had recognised his abilities
(5 ) OJ L 23, 25.1.2001, p. 9.                                              for A2 post of Director AIDCO. Furthermore, the appointing
                                                                            authority subsequently established criteria not set out in the
                                                                            vacancy notice.
                                                                            Finally, the appointing authority made a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment in the comparison of the candidates’ respective
                                                                            merits.
Action brought on 5 November 2003 by Jacques Wunen-
burger against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            Action brought on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci
                          (Case T-370/03)                                            against the Council of the European Union
                           (2004/C 21/78)                                                           (Case T-371/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/79)
                     (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 5 November 2003 by Jacques                          Communities on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci,
Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by                   Brussels, (Belgium), represented by B. van de Wal and E. Oude
E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Elferink, lawyers.


title: Case T-55/99: Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías against the European Commission

text:
C 174/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.6.1999
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos Progoul-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
is against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          — annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission Decision of
                          (Case T-53/99)                                       1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                               system of aid for the purchase of commercial vehicles;
                         (1999/C 174/17)                                  — order the European Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                European Commission by which it found that the agreement
European Communities on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos                      concluded by the Comisión Delegada para Asuntos Econ-
Progoulis, represented by Mr Vassilis Akritidis and Mr Jonathan           ómicos (Executive Committee for Economic Affairs) concern-
Branton, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 ing a programme of measures to support the renewal of
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.                   the commercial vehicle fleet (the ‘Plan Remove Industrial’)
                                                                          constitutes, in part, State aid. That programme is aimed at
                                                                          facilitating the financing of the purchase of new commercial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               vehicles by natural persons and by small and medium-sized
1. annul the defendant’s decision failing to amend the appli-             enterprises (SMEs), subject to the condition that another
    cant’s staff report for the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June             commercial vehicle at least ten years old — other than a road
    1997                                                                  tractor — should be definitively scrapped. The contested
                                                                          decision stated that the only items which did not constitute
2. order that the costs of and occasioned by the proceedings              State aid were grants of aid to regional public bodies and
    be borne by the defendant                                             bodies providing local public services and to natural persons
                                                                          or SMEs engaged in activities other than transport on an
3. order that compensation for non-material damage suffered               exclusively local or regional scale.
    in a minimum amount of BFR 100 000 be awarded to the
    applicant.                                                            The application is based on the following claims:
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                expectations. The applicant maintains in that regard that
                                                                               recipients of assistance under the Plan Renove, who did not
The applicant, an official in Directorate General XI.E.1 of the                receive any information from the Spanish administrative
Commission, seeks the amendment of his staff report for the                    authorities concerning the procedure followed before the
period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, on the ground                         Commission, were not in a position to appreciate factors
that his tasks, duties, responsibilities and performance were                  indicating the possible existence of any public subsidy or
misdescribed.                                                                  aid. Moreover, it was reasonable for those recipients to
                                                                               regard the Renove measures as being covered by the
                                                                               Community ‘de minimis’ rule.
The applicant submits in this regard that the contested decision
infringes general principles of law, Article 1 of the General             — Incorrect assessment of the existence of State aid, inasmuch
Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations                as the plan in question is not intended to benefit any
and Article 3 (c) (ii) and (iii) of the Guide to Staff Reports. The            particular undertakings or the production of any particular
infringements concerned also involve a manifest error in the                   goods. In the applicant’s view, the present case concerns
assessment of the facts made by the AIPN, vitiating the                        provisions of a general nature which are applicable to any
assessment of his performance.                                                 natural person or SME, without distinction as to origin or
                                                                               nationality, and which do not favour any particular
                                                                               production sector, since no conditions whatever are
                                                                               imposed regarding the origin of the vehicle concerned.
                                                                          — Absence of a statement of reasons concerning distortion
                                                                               of competition and the effect on trade between Member
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Confedera-                           States. The applicant maintains in that connection that the
ción Española de Transporte de Mercancı́as against the                       plan in question is basically and primarily intended to
                     European Commission                                       cover vehicles which are not in competition with those in
                                                                               other Member States of the Community, since vehicles
                          (Case T-55/99)                                       which are engaged in such competition are renewed long
                                                                               before expiry of the period of ten years which must elapse
                         (1999/C 174/18)                                       under the plan. The applicant further states that, at most,
                                                                               the Plan Renove Industrial may prove to be less favourable
                                                                               to haulage contractors established outside Spain, inasmuch
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                              as recourse to it would involve them in additional expense;
                                                                               nevertheless, such haulage contractors would then be in a
An action against the European Commission was brought                          more advantageous position than those established in
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 Spain, on account of the much lower interest rates
on 25 February 1999 by the Confederación Española de                         prevailing in their respective countries. Moreover, the
Transporte de Mercancı́as, established in Madrid, Spain, rep-                  Plan Renove Industrial does not automatically exclude
resented by Jorge Pérez Villar, of the Madrid Bar.                             undertakings established in other Member States.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 174/9
The applicant association concludes its arguments by asserting           The applicant raises the following pleas in law:
that insufficient reasons have been given for the requirement
that the aid in issue be repaid, and that this infringes the             — infringement of an essential procedural requirement in
principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate                   that the contested regulation has provided no or at least
expectations, equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrari-               no clear legal basis and/or that the joinder of two legal
ness.                                                                         bases results in a breach of the essential procedural
                                                                              requirements laid down in Directive 70/524/EEG; (2)
                                                                         — manifest error of assessment on the part of the Council in
                                                                              the application of Article 3(a)(e) of Directive 70/524/EEC;
                                                                         — infringement by the Council of fundamental principles of
                                                                              law forming part of the Community legal order, such as the
Action brought on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc.                              proportionality principle, the principle of the protection of
          against the Council of the European Union                           legitimate expectations and the right to be heard and,
                                                                              finally;
                         (Case T-70/99)
                                                                         — insufficient reasoning for the contested regulation and,
                                                                              consequently, infringement by the Council of Article 190
                        (1999/C 174/19)                                       of the EC Treaty.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       (1) See also pending Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Councilnot
                                                                             yet published in the OJ.
                                                                         (2) Council Directive of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      feedingstuffs, OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc., Fort Lee
(the United States of America) represented by Mr. Gavin
Robert, London, and Mr. Bemard Van de Walle de Ghelcke,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Company Ltd against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 Decem-
    ber 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authoris-                                       (Case T-75/99)
    ation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EC concern-
    ing additives in feedingstuffs; or                                                             (1999/C 174/20)
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in so far as it
    relates to withdrawal of authorisation of bacitracin zinc;                               (Language of the case: English)
    and
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
                                                                         Company Ltd, represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brinckman, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, B.P. 39, L-2010.
The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware and established in the United States of                The applicant claims that the Court should:
America, produces an antibiotic feed additive called bacitracin
zinc, in formulations appropriate for use as an antimicrobial            — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that, in
growth promoter in animals. The applicant is the only                         breach of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, the Commission
manufacturer and the most important supplier of bacitracin                    has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with
zinc in the EEA and markets its additive, which is produced in                the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
Norway, under the trade name Albac.                                           1998 in Case T-120/96 (Lilly Industries Ltd v Commission);
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU
The contested regulation(1) withdraws the autorisation to use                 2.6 million, in accordance with Articles 178 and 215,
and market bacitracin zinc as an additive in animal feeding-                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for the material and
stuffs with effect from 30 June 1999. Banning bacitracine zinc                non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
was found to be a necessary safeguard pending further                         of the Commission’s failure to act;
comprehensive evidence as to the possibility of antibiotic
resistance and the assessment of the risk of transfer from               — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU 1 000
animals to humans. Such transfer of resistance would reduce                   per day from the date of the judgment in the present case
the effectiveness of bacitracin zinc used as a human medicinal                to the date until such time as the Commission has taken
product. Three other products, spiramycin, virginiamycin and                  the measures necessary in order to comply with the
tylosin phosphate, were banned at the same time. The ban is                   judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-120/96;
to be reviewed no later than 31 December 2000.                                and