title: Case C-390/07: Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/10

         Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-390/07)
   (2007/C 283/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, X. Lewis and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by having failed to

                           —

                           identify the Humber Estuary, The Wash, the Deben and Colne Estuaries, the Outer Thames Estuary, Southampton Water and the North East Irish Sea — with the exception of the Solway Firth — as sensitive areas with respect to eutrophication;

                           —

                           subject to more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 10 000 into the Humber Estuary, The Wash, the Deben and Colne Estuaries, the Outer Thames Estuary, Southampton Water, the North East Irish Sea — with the exception of the Solway Firth —, and into Lough Neagh and Upper and Lower Lough Erne,

                     the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 3(1), 3(2), 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(5) of, and Annex II to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment.

               2.

               Order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the Commission's view the United Kingdom has taken an excessively restrictive approach to the identification of sensitive areas. This is not only because of the relatively high threshold of proof required by the United Kingdom before accepting that a water body is eutrophic, but also the fact that the United Kingdom makes no reference to the need also to identify those water bodies which are at risk and may in the near future become eutrophic if protective action is not taken.
   Because the United Kingdom has failed to identify as sensitive areas the Humber estuary, the Wash, the Deben and Colne estuaries, the Outer Thames estuary and Southampton Water and the North East Irish Sea (excluding the Solway Firth) the waste water from the agglomerations of more that 10 000 p.e. discharging waste waters into these areas, as well as those agglomerations which are situated in their relevant catchment areas, have not been made subject to the collection and treatment obligations foreseen in the directive for sensitive areas by the 31 December 1998 deadline.
   London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Kingston upon Hull and Southampton are among the agglomerations implicated. This puts the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the directive, and in particular of those specified in Article 3(1) and (2) and in Article 5(2), (3) and (5) and annex II thereof.
   The Commission is also of the opinion that the United Kingdom has failed to ensure that the full obligations set out in Articles 5(2), (3) and (5) of the directive have been met for a number of agglomerations discharging into the designated sensitive areas of Lough Neagh and Upper and Lower Lough Erne, as was required by 31 December 1998.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, p. 40).


title: Case T-237/05: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 4064/89 — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
   (Case T-237/05) (1)

   (Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 4064/89 - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice)
   2010/C 209/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: initially W. van Weert and O. Fréget, later O. Fréget, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, P. Costa de Oliveira and O. Beynet, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Lagardère SCA (represented by initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and I. Girgenson, later A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J. B. Pinçon, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission decision of 7 April 2005 dismissing in part the applicant’s request seeking access to certain documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings (Case No COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP),

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no further need to rule on the lawfulness of the Decision D(2005) 3286 of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 April 2005, as it refused total or partial access to the documents set out at paragraph 1(a) to (c) and at paragraph 2(h) and (j) of this judgment

               2.

               Annuls Decision D(2005) 3286 in so far as it refuses to grant total access to the documents referred to in paragraph 1(d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) and paragraph 2(b) to (d), (f), (g) and (i) of the present judgment, with the exception of the opinion of the Commission's legal service referred to in paragraph 1(g) of the present judgment.

               3.

               Annuls Decision D(2005) 3286 in so far as it refuses to grant partial access to the documents referred to in paragraph 1(d),(e),(g) and (h) and paragraph 2(b) to (d), (f),(g) and (i) of the present judgment.

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS.

               6.

               Orders Lagardère SCA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 20.8.2005.


title: Case T-197/15: Action brought on 20 April 2015 — Costa v Parliament

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/44

         Action brought on 20 April 2015 — Costa v Parliament
   (Case T-197/15)
   (2015/C 198/60)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Costa (Venice, Italy) (represented by: G. Orsoni and M. Romeo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2015 and all prior, connected or consecutive measures, including the debit note notified on 27 February 2015, to be null and void, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-15/15 Costa v Parliament.


title: Case C-136/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 15 March 2017 — G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 15 March 2017 — G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)
   (Case C-136/17)
   (2017/C 168/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D.

      Defendant: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the specific responsibilities, powers and capabilities of the operator of a search engine, does the prohibition imposed on other controllers of processing data caught by Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46, (1) subject to the exceptions laid down there, also apply to this operator as the controller of processing by means of that search engine?

               2.

               If Question 1 should be answered in the affirmative:

                           —

                           Must Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition so imposed on the operator of a search engine of processing data covered by those provisions, subject to the exceptions laid down by that directive, would require the operator to grant as a matter of course the requests for ‘de-referencing’ in relation to links to web pages concerning such data?

                           —

                           From that perspective, how must the exceptions laid down in Article 8(2)(a) and (e) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted, when they apply to the operator of a search engine, in the light of its specific responsibilities, powers and capabilities? In particular, may such an operator refuse a request for ‘de-referencing’, if it establishes that the links at issue lead to content which, although comprising data falling within the categories listed in Article 8(1), is also covered by the exceptions laid down by Article 8(2)(a) and (e) of the directive?

                           —

                           Similarly, when the links subject to the request for ‘de-referencing’ lead to processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or for those of artistic or literary expression, on which basis, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 95/46, data within the categories mentioned in Article 8(1) and (5) of the directive may be collected and processed, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as allowing the operator of a search engine, on that ground, to refuse a request for ‘de-referencing’?

               3.

               If Question 1 should be answered in the negative:

                           —

                           Which specific requirements of Directive 95/46 must be met by the operator of a search engine, in view of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities?

                           —

                           When the operator establishes that the web pages at the end of the links subject to the request for ‘de-referencing’ comprise data whose publication on those pages is unlawful, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as:

                                       —

                                       requiring the operator of a search engine to remove those links from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of the name of the person making the request; or

                                       —

                                       meaning only that it is to take that factor into consideration in assessing the merits of the request for ‘de-referencing’, or

                                       —

                                       meaning that this factor has no bearing on the assessment it is to make?

                     Furthermore, if that factor is not irrelevant, how is the lawfulness of the publication on web pages of the data at issue which stem from processing falling outside the territorial scope of Directive 95/46 and, accordingly, of the national laws implementing it to be assessed?

               4.

               Irrespective of the answer to be given to Question 1:

                           —

                           whether or not publication of the personal data on the web page at the end of the link at issue is lawful, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as:

                                       —

                                       requiring the operator of a search engine, when the person making the request establishes that the data in question has become incomplete or inaccurate, or is no longer up to date, to grant the corresponding request for ‘de-referencing’;

                                       —

                                       more specifically, requiring the operator of a search engine, when the person making the request shows that, having regard to the conduct of the legal proceedings, the information relating to an earlier stage of those proceedings is no longer consistent with the current reality of his situation, to ‘de-reference’ the links to web pages comprising such information?

                           —

                           Must Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that information relating to the investigation of an individual or reporting a trial and the resulting conviction and sentencing constitutes data relating to offences and to criminal convictions? More generally, does a web page comprising data referring to the convictions of or legal proceedings involving a natural person fall within the ambit of those provisions?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case T-239/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Italy v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/31

         Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-239/10)
   2010/C 195/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, debit note No 3241001630 of 1 March 2010, received on 11 March 2010, issued by the European Commission, D.G. Regional Policy, as a consequence of Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009, notified on 23 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-223/10 Regione Puglia v Commission.


title: Case T-387/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Terna v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/31

         Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Terna v Commission
   (Case T-387/16)
   (2016/C 326/54)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Degni, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 23 May 2016 (Reference No: ENER/SRD.3/JCM/cID(2016)2952913), which merely confirms the previous measure of 6 July 2015 (Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621), together with the measure of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 14 June 2016 (Reference No: SRD.3/JCM/cl/D(2016)4477388) communicating Debit Note No 3 241 608 548 ordering payment of EUR 494 871,39 by 28 July 2016, annulling as a result the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 6 July 2015 (Reference No: Move.srd3.dir(2015)2669621), in so far as that decision does not allow reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with Projects Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07/TEN-E-S07.91403 and imposes an obligation to repay the sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table appended to the contested measure;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 23 May 2016 (Reference No: ENER/SRD.3/JCM/cID (2016)2952913), together with the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 6 July 2015 (Reference No: Move.srd3.dir(2015)2669621), in so far as that decision does not provide for a reduction in the reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with Projects Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07/TEN-E-S07.91.403 commensurate with the profits made by CESI.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The measures contested in the present case merely confirm the previous determinations made by the Commission, which have already been challenged in good time by the applicant in the action pending before the General Court in Case T-544/15.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in that case.


title: Case T-202/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Group’Hygiène v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Professional association — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/50

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Group’Hygiène v Commission
   (Case T-202/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Professional association - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Group’Hygiène (Paris, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sphère France SAS and of Schweitzer SAS.

               3.

               Group’Hygiène is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-583/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC v Enedis, SA

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC v Enedis, SA
   (Case C-583/16)
   (2017/C 038/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC

      Defendant: Enedis, SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?

               2.

               If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?


title: Case C-432/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern (Principle of judicial protection — National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law — Procedural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Interim protection)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern
   (Case C-432/05) (1)

   (Principle of judicial protection - National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Interim protection)
   (2007/C 95/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd

      Defendant: Justitiekanslern
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National legislation not providing for an action for a declaration that a legislative provision conflicts with higher-ranking legal rules — Right of individuals to effective judicial protection of rights which they derive from the Community legal order
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national legal order of a Member State to provide for a free-standing action for an examination of whether national provisions are compatible with Article 49 EC, provided that other effective legal remedies, which are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions, make it possible for such a question of compatibility to be determined as a preliminary issue, which is a task that falls to the national court.

               2.

               The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights under Community law must be interpreted as requiring it to be possible in the legal order of a Member State for interim relief to be granted until the competent court has given a ruling on whether national provisions are compatible with Community law, where the grant of such relief is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of such rights.

               3.

               The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that, where the compatibility of national provisions with Community law is being challenged, the grant of any interim relief to suspend the application of such provisions until the competent court has given a ruling on whether those provisions are compatible with Community law is governed by the criteria laid down by the national law applicable before that court, provided that those criteria are no less favourable than those applying to similar domestic actions and do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the interim judicial protection of those rights.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-285/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2016 in Case T-33/15, Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (BIMBO)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/10

         Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2016 in Case T-33/15, Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (BIMBO)
   (Case C-285/16 P)
   (2016/C 475/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 13 October 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-296/15: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2016 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Establishing a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of metalaxyl on that list — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/35

         Order of the General Court of 16 February 2016 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission
   (Case T-296/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of metalaxyl on that list - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 136/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín, P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-232/10: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-232/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/18
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.07.2010.


title: Case F-5/11: Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Mariën v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/30

         Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Mariën v Commission
   (Case F-5/11)
   2011/C 139/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Mariën (Elsene, Belgium) (represented by: B. Theeuwes and F. Pons, attorneys)

      Defendant: European commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of Head of the EU Delegation to Afghanistan which ordered to members of this Delegation to leave their hotel and to move into a housing compound of the EU.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the e-mail message of January 11, 2011 of EU Special Representative and Head of the EU Delegation to Afghanistan ordering the Applicant to relocate on January 14, 2011 to the residential compound in Kabul, Afghanistan;

               —

               order the Commission to bear all costs relating to the temporary residence measures;

               —

               order the Commission to pay an indemnity of 10 000 euros to the Applicant for the psychological stress and harm caused;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-172/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2014  — ING Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2014 — ING Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței
   (Case C-172/14)
   2014/C 212/15
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ING Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA

      Defendant: Consiliul Concurenței

      Question referred

   In relation to a practice by virtue of which clients are shared out, is the specific and definitive number of those clients relevant in deciding whether the condition of a significant distortion of competition for the purposes of Article 101(1)(c) TFEU is fulfilled?


title: Case T-420/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Armani v OHIM — Annunziata del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/61

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Armani v OHIM — Annunziata del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)
   (Case T-420/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/97
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Annunziata del Prete (Naples, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 1360/2009-2 of 8 July 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal for misapplication and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in failing to recognise that there is a risk of confusion between the marks at issue;

               —

               uphold the applicant’s arguments as put forward in the opposition proceedings and in accordance with the decision of the Opposition Division;

               —

               reject in its entirety, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Community trade mark application No 6 314 462 in the name of Annunziata del Prete, in respect of the goods and services specified therein;

               —

               order OHIM to comply with the decision and to refuse registration of the mark ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’;

               —

               order OHIM, alone and/or together with Annunziata del Prete, to reimburse Giorgio Armani SpA all costs incurred throughout the procedure;

               —

               decide, as a consequence of the annulment, that payment should be made to Giorgio Armani SpA of all the costs incurred in the course of the procedure, including the costs incurred in the appeal, in accordance with Article 91[(b)] of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Annunziata del Prete

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘AJ Amici Junior’ (registration application No 6 314 462), for goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 35

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark containing the word element ‘AJ Armani Jeans’ (No 912 114), for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 35, and the Italian word mark containing the word element ‘ARMANI JUNIOR’ (No 998 554), for goods in Classes 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 with regard to the existence of a risk of confusion between the marks at issue and between the goods covered by those marks


title: Case T-192/12: Action brought on 2 May 2012 — PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/26

         Action brought on 2 May 2012 — PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-192/12)
   2012/C 194/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Rutteman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the Commission’s Decision of 9 March 2012, which found a request made by the applicant for internal review to be inadmissible, contrary to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006/EC (1) and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘Aarhus Convention’);

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision of 9 March 2012;

               —

               Instruct the Commission to assess, nonetheless, the substance of the request for internal review, within a period of time determined by the Court; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      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 that the defendant erred when it found that the applicant did not comply with the conditions of eligibility set out in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, as the applicant already existed for more than two years when it made its request for internal review.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred when it stated that Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 (2) cannot be considered an administrative act within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, as it is defined in Article 2(1)(g) of that Regulation, as the decision to approve prochloraz is sufficiently individual in its effects and content to make it an administrative act as is meant in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 of 10 November 2011 approving the active substance prochloraz, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 26)


title: Case C-316/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2012 — J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm v TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A.

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2012 — J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm v TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A.
   (Case C-316/12)
   2012/C 295/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm

      Defendant: TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A.

      Question referred

   Is Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted, with regard to the ‘reasonable grounds’ mentioned therein, to the effect that ‘reasonable grounds’ can only be grounds pertaining to the person of the passenger which jeopardise the safety of air transport or of other passengers or which affect other public or contractual interests, or can ‘reasonable grounds’ also be other grounds not pertaining to the person of the passenger, in particular cases of force majeure?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-26/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/80/EC — Compensation to crime victims — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-26/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/80/EC - Compensation to crime victims - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 211/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-164/11: Action brought on 16 March 2011 — Reddig v OHMI — Morleys (Shape of knife handles)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/25

         Action brought on 16 March 2011 — Reddig v OHMI — Morleys (Shape of knife handles)
   (Case T-164/11)
   2011/C 152/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reddig GmbH (Drebber, Germany) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Morleys Ltd (Preston, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 December 2010 in case R 1072/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The three-dimensional mark ‘dolphin’, for goods in classes 6, 8 and 20 — Community trade mark registration No 2630101

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and on that the proprietor had acted in bad faith when failing the application pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Accepted the request for a declaration of invalidity and declared the registration of the Community trade mark invalid in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, the Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted this article and incorrectly interpreted the requirements of the Lego decision of the Court of the European Union (Judgement of the Court of 14 September 2010, Lego Juris v OHIM, C-48/09 P).


title: Case C-414/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2014  — Bolloré v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — Market in carbonless paper — Attributability of liability to the parent company for the infringement committed by its subsidiary — Direct participation of the parent company in the infringement — Equal treatment — Duration of the administrative procedure and legal proceedings — Reasonable period of time — Rights of the defence)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/4

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Bolloré v European Commission
   (Case C-414/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Market in carbonless paper - Attributability of liability to the parent company for the infringement committed by its subsidiary - Direct participation of the parent company in the infringement - Equal treatment - Duration of the administrative procedure and legal proceedings - Reasonable period of time - Rights of the defence))
   2014/C 202/04
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bolloré (represented by: P. Gassenbach, C. Lemaire and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2012 in Case T-372/10 Bolloré v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment or amendment of Commission Decision C (2010) 4160 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.212 — Carbonless paper) — Decision taken following annulment of a first decision — Attribution of liability for the infringement to the parent company as direct perpetrator — Fine — Lawfulness of infringements and penalties — Equal treatment — Reasonable period of time — Rights of the defence

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Bolloré to pay the costs of the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-123/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Greencore Group plc (Application for annulment of a letter of the Commission — Refusal to pay interest on a sum refunded — Concept of act confirming an earlier act — Payment of the principal sum without interest — No earlier decision to refuse)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-123/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Greencore Group plc (1)

   (Application for annulment of a letter of the Commission - Refusal to pay interest on a sum refunded - Concept of act confirming an earlier act - Payment of the principal sum without interest - No earlier decision to refuse)
   (2005/C 45/12)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-123/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 19 March 2003, by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner), the other party to the proceedings being: Greencore Group plc, established in Dublin (Ireland), (Represented by: A. Böhlke) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 7 January 2003 in Case T-135/02 Greencore Group v Commission;

               2.

               Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-3/01: Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 95/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.3.2001
Infringement of the right to put forward a proper defence: if           Pleas in law and main arguments
an undertaking on which the Commission has wrongly
imposed a fine is not entitled to claim lost interest, it is in
effect not in a position to mount a full defence against                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
decisions wrongly addressed to it by the Commission.                    T-2/01.
Unjustified enrichment.
Since there exists no generally applicable rate of interest, the
applicant bases its calculation of the interest on the percentage
charged by the Commission when fixing the amount to be
paid by undertakings which have delayed paying a justified
                                                                        Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale
fine.
                                                                        Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-5/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse
Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 January 2001 by the Istituto
                          (Case T-3/01)                                 Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and
                                                                        Others, represented by Giovanni Pesce and Filippo Brunetti,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 95/31)
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        —     uphold the application and order the defendant to pay
                                                                              the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Neder-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
landse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV, established at ’s-Hertogen-
bosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel and
R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in          The present application is directed against the decision con-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                 tained in the letter dated 27 October 2000 (D13118), signed
                                                                        by the Director General of the European Commission, Direc-
                                                                        torate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, by which
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the applicant consortium of undertakings was informed that
                                                                        they had been excluded from the tendering procedure relating
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000               to the information campaign on food safety in Member States
      refusing to pay ENCI interest on the fine improperly              for 2000 and 2001.
      imposed on it;
                                                                        The rejection at issue is based on the lack of evidence of:
—     order the Commission to pay to ENCI interest at the rate
      of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on                 —     at least three years’ of experience in cooperation with a
      7 316 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to                        consumer organisation; and
      23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
      2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to           —     ability to involve the consumer organisations in the
      ENCI;                                                                   campaign.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            In support of its arguments, the applicant consortium alleges:


title: Case F-36/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/52

         Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice
   (Case F-36/15)
   (2015/C 146/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decisions fixing the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the applicants’ salary slips in respect of July 2014 in so far as they apply for the first time Article 8 of Annex VII to the version of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 January 2014 in order to fix the reimbursement of their travel expenses;

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.


title: Case C-103/12: Action brought on 28 February 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/2

         Action brought on 28 February 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-103/12)
   2012/C 157/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, I. Díez Parra and I. Liukkonen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/19/EU (1) of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the European Parliament seeks annulment of Council Decision 2012/19/EU of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana. The Parliament challenges the legal basis chosen. It submits, principally, that Article 43(3) TFEU, together with Article 218(6)(b) TFEU, cannot be the correct legal basis, since the measure in question equates to an international agreement concerning access to European Union waters for the purposes of fishing activities by a non-member country. Accordingly, the measure ought to have been adopted on the basis of Articles 43(2) and 218(6)(a) TFEU and thus after approval by the Parliament.
   In the alternative, the Parliament takes the view that the Council, having used the procedure laid down in Article 218(6)(b) TFEU, has given an incorrect interpretation to Article 218(6)(a) TFEU. Even if Article 43(3) TFEU could constitute the appropriate legal basis for an internal measure of the European Union with the same content as the measure challenged, which the Parliament disputes, the fact remains that the Common Fisheries Policy forms, for the purposes of the EU entering into international commitments, an indissociable whole from a procedural point of view. Accordingly, any agreement in that field is an ‘agreement covering fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies’ within the meaning of Article 218(6)(a) TFEU. Thus, in any event the measure ought to have been adopted in observance of the consent procedure laid down in Article 218(6)(a) TFEU.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 6, p. 8.


title: Case C-198/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January 2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
11.8.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/9
      tories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
      of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001;                Tribunal Administrativo, 2a Secçao, by judgment of that
                                                                       court of 4 April 2001 in the case of Fazenda Pública
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                             against Antero & CC.a, Lda
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Netherlands refers to the application made in Case                                         (Case C-203/01)
C-452/00 (2).
(1) OJ L 58 of 28.02.2001, p. 13.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001, p. 12.                                                              (2001/C 227/14)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                       Administrativo, 2a Secçao (Second Chamber of the Supreme
                                                                       Administrative Court), of 4 April 2001, which was received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 17 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       in the case of Fazenda Pública against Antero & CC.a, Lda on
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January
                                                                       the following questions:
2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)
    v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
                         (Case C-198/01)                               1.   What is the meaning and scope of the expression
                                                                            ‘prise en compte’ used in the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1)
                         (2001/C 227/13)                                    of 24 July 1979?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 January 2001 by the
First Chamber of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale                2.   Was the official act by which the amount of the import
(Regional Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at               duties or export duties to be collected by the competent
the Court Registry on 11 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling               authorities is duly determined referred to in Article 1(2)(c)
in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità              of that regulation ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in the
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato on the following                    accounts) or was it ‘liquidaçao’ (assessment), calculation
questions:                                                                  or computation of those duties by the customs auth-
                                                                            orities?
(1) Where an agreement between undertakings adversely
      affects Community trade, and where that agreement is
      required or facilitated by national legislation which
      legitimises or reinforces those effects, specifically with       3.   On 19 April 1988, was ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in
      regard to the determination of prices or market-sharing               the accounts) a procedural requirement essential for
      arrangements, does Article 81 [EC] require or permit the              the validity of the assessment or was it a procedural
      official anti-trust Authority to disapply that measure                requirement rendering it enforceable or payable?
      and to penalise the anti-competitive conduct of the
      undertakings or, in any event, to prohibit it for the future,
      and if so, with what legal consequences?                         4.   On 19 April 1988, did assessment (calculation or compu-
                                                                            tation) of import duties duly notified to the debtor for
(2) For the purposes of applying Article 81(1) [EC], is
                                                                            post-clearance recovery, even where there is no entry in
      it possible to regard national legislation under which
                                                                            the accounts, render the customs debt due and payable?
      competence to fix the selling prices of a product is
      delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
      between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to
      which the relevant producers are obliged to belong, as           5.   Did the appeal against the order for payment of the
      leaving room for competition which is open to hindrance,              customs authorities which had refused to grant the
      restriction or distortion by the autonomous conduct of                application for remission of post-clearance recovery of
      those undertakings?                                                   duty and which was before the Portuguese courts from
                                                                            1988 until 15 November 1995 have the effect of
                                                                            suspending the period of three years for post-clearance
                                                                            recovery?


title: Case T-372/02: Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 31/21
Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Internationaler                      humanitarian aid. In 1996, the applicant applied to become a
Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European                     partner of the European Community Humanitarian Office
                           Communities                                     (ECHO) and to sign a Framework Partnership Agreement. In
                                                                           1999, the applicant was also informed that meanwhile new
                         (Case T-372/02)                                   conditions for the Framework Partnership Agreement had
                                                                           entered into force and that its application would be considered
                          (2003/C 31/30)                                   under these new provisions. In 2001, it was informed on the
                                                                           steps taken by ECHO upon receipt of the application in 1996.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In 2001, the applicant lodged a complaint with the European
                                                                           Ombudsman for the irresponsible behaviour of ECHO and
                                                                           maladministration. The Ombudsman concluded that there
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           were instances of maladministration and made several critical
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           remarks.
European Communities on 13 December 2002 by Interna-
tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach, Germany, represented by
Dr. iur. H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.                                           Subsequently, the applicant requested that ECHO would
                                                                           reinstitute him in the position it had in 1996, before the
                                                                           maladministrations occurred and that appropriate disciplinary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                measures would be taken against the staff of ECHO responsible
                                                                           for these maladministrations. The applicant contests the
—     declare void the decision of the defendant of 22 October             decision of the defendant in which it refuses to reinstitute the
      2002;                                                                applicant or to seek an alternative and compensatory solution.
—     order the defendant to reinstate the applicant in the
      position he had in 1996 when he had applied to become                The applicant submits that the defendant has violated the
      a partner of the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) of the               rules defined in the European Code of Good Administrative
      European Community, in which position he would have                  Behaviour, has violated the rights of the applicant and has
      been if the defendant’s several maladministrations had               manipulated the applicant’s file.
      not occurred;
                                                                           According to the applicant, the defendant did not respect the
—     or, alternatively, order the defendant to invite the appli-          principle that applications must be examined in the light of
      cant to sign the Framework Partnership Agreement now                 the requirements defined in the rules in force at the moment
      in force;                                                            of the application. Likewise, the applicant was not informed of
                                                                           the request for information sent by the defendant to the
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the                German Foreign Office and the suspension of the application.
      costs he had to bear in pursuing a complaint against the             The applicant also claims that he was not heard on these
      European Commission at the office of the European                    decisions. Furthermore, the applicant submits that its appli-
      Ombudsman, amounting at EUR 14 562,00;                               cation was not dealt with within a reasonable period.
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs arising in
      connection with this application as well as the cost of the          The applicant claims that the defendant also violated articles 5
                                                                           and 10 of the EC Treaty by insisting on an audit of the
      present procedure.
                                                                           applicant’s organisational, structural and financial situation.
                                                                           This competence lies, according to the applicant, solely with
                                                                           the German authorities.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant finally claims that the defendant should grant a
The applicant is a non-governmental organisation, established              financial compensation for the costs incurred following the
under German law and working in the field of international                 complaint lodged with the European Ombudsman.


title: Case C-497/04: Action brought on 1 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/12

         Action brought on 1 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-497/04)
   (2005/C 31/25)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Yiorgos Zabbo, of its Legal service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 March 2002 amending Council Directive 73/239/EEC as regards the solvency margin requirements for non-life insurance undertakings, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 20 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 77, p. 17.


title: Case C-461/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13(B)(d)(3) and (5) — ‘Other securities’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’  — Sales promotion scheme — Discount card — Taxable amount)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag
   (Case C-461/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13(B)(d)(3) and (5) - ‘Other securities’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Sales promotion scheme - Discount card - Taxable amount))
   2014/C 282/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Granton Advertising BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(B)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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 the sale of a discount card, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute a transaction in ‘other securities’ or concerning ‘other negotiable instruments’, within the meaning, respectively, of paragraphs 5 and 3 of that provision, which refers to certain transactions which the Member States must exempt from value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case C-119/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-119/08)
   (2008/C 128/45)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Referring court
   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Mechel Nemunas UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (State Tax Inspectorate attached to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania)
   Question referred
   Are First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) and/or Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) to be interpreted as having prohibited a Member State from maintaining, and levying, deductions from income in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme in the form of the tax which has been described earlier in this order?

      (1)  First Council Directive of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 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 45, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2005 in Case T-32/03 Leder & Schuh AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word mark ‘Schuhpark’ — Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 March 2005
   in Case T-32/03 Leder & Schuh AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark ‘Schuhpark’ - Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 115/37)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-32/03: Leder & Schuh AG, established in Graz (Austria), represented by W. Kellentur and A. Schlaffge, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and B. Müller), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Schuhpark Fascies GmbH, established in Warendorf (Germany), represented by A. Peter, lawyer — action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2002, in the corrected version of 9 December 2002 (Case R 494/1999-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-178/15: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission (System of traditional specialities guaranteed — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Letter from the Commission informing the competent national authorities of their late lodging of their opposition measure — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/45

         Order of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
   (Case T-178/15) (1)

   ((System of traditional specialities guaranteed - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Letter from the Commission informing the competent national authorities of their late lodging of their opposition measure - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 270/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of 9 February 2015 from the Director of Directorate B ‘Multilateral relations and quality policy’ of the Commission’s ‘Agriculture and rural development’ Directorate General, with the reference Ares (2015)529719, informing the competent German authorities that their opposition measure under Article 51(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), which was lodged on 5 January 2015, was submitted after the deadline.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-37/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v EUIPO (CAFFÈ NERO) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark CAFFÈ NERO — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v EUIPO (CAFFÈ NERO)
   (Case T-37/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark CAFFÈ NERO - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 462/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2015 (Case R 954/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign CAFFÈ NERO as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Caffè Nero Group Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-89/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court — Error in law — Error in fact — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-89/14) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court - Error in law - Error in fact - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 022/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and D. Gauci, agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, in the alternative, annulment of Decision 2013/661 and of Implementing Regulation No 1154/2013 in so far as those acts concern the applicant as from 20 January 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Export Development Bank of Iran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-198/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Cementownia Warta S.A. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions — Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Cementownia ‘Warta’ S.A. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-198/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 301/64)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Cementownia ‘Warta’ S.A. (Trębaczewo, Poland) (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and F. Puel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Cementownia ‘Warta’ S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-491/07: Action brought on 27 December 2007 — CB v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/46

         Action brought on 27 December 2007 — CB v Commission
   (Case T-491/07)
   (2008/C 64/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) GIE (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Georges, J. Ruiz Calzado, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/D1/38606 — GROUPEMENT DES CARTES BANCAIRES ‘CB’), concerning tariff measures for membership of the Groupement applicable to new members and the ‘sleeper member fee’ applicable to members of the Groupement which have not developed significant business in banking cards since becoming members.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.
   The first plea alleges infringement of Article 81 EC, the principle of equal treatment and a failure to state reasons on account of alleged defects in the method of analysis of the measures and the markets adopted by the Commission, in that it failed to take account of either the overall context, all the relevant information, or the specific circumstances in which they were adopted and in which their effects are felt.
   Second, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging infringement of Article 81(1) EC on account of errors of law, fact and assessment that the Commission made during the examination of the purpose of the measures which were notified to it. The applicant takes the view that the Commission has failed to comply with the obligation to examine the purpose of a decision by an association of undertakings and has not established that that purpose is anticompetitive.
   By the third plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 81(1) EC also because of errors of law, fact and assessment that the Commission made during the examination of the effect of the measures notified to it.
   In the alternative, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed Article 81(3) EC in the examination of the applicability of the four conditions required in order to obtain an exemption.
   The fifth plea relied on by the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration resulting from supposed omissions, contradictions and distortions of a number of its arguments in the contested decision.
   The final plea alleges infringement of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.


title: Case C-277/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Polkomtel Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Polkomtel Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-277/16)
   (2016/C 335/40)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Polkomtel Sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Article 13, in conjunction with Article 8(4), of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), (1) in its original version, be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation for cost orientation of prices is imposed on an operator with significant market power, the national regulatory authority may, in order to promote efficiency and sustainable competition, set the price for the service covered by that obligation below the level of the costs of supplying that service that are incurred by the operator, verified by the national regulatory authority and regarded as costs attributable to that service?

               (2)

               Must Article 13(3), in conjunction with Article 8(4), of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), in its original version, in conjunction with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority may impose on an operator obliged to orientate prices to costs an obligation to set the price annually on the basis of the most up-to-date data on costs and submit the price thus set, together with a cost justification, to the national regulatory authority for verification before that price becomes applicable in trade?

               (3)

               Must Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), in its original version, in conjunction with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority may request the operator required to orientate prices to costs to adjust the price only where that operator first sets the amount of the price independently and starts to apply it, or also where the operator applies the price at the amount set previously by the national regulatory authority but it follows from the cost justification for the subsequent reporting period that the price set previously by the national regulatory authority is above the level of costs incurred by the operator?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.


title: Case T-4/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2006 — Achaiber Sing v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Animal health — Requirements for the import of birds — Agreement on the application of health and phyto-sanitary measures — Compensation for damage — Partial inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2006 — Achaiber Sing v Commission
   (Case T-4/04) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Animal health - Requirements for the import of birds - Agreement on the application of health and phyto-sanitary measures - Compensation for damage - Partial inadmissibility - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   (2006/C 190/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: R.K. Achaiber Sing (Leiden, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Wilgers and J. van Duin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Kuijper, T. van Rijn and M. van Heezik, Agents)
   Re:
   Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the application of Commission Decision 2000/666/EC of 16 October 2000 laying down the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification for the import of birds, other than poultry and the conditions for quarantine (OJ 2000 L 278, p. 26)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the plea of inadmissibility

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 October 2008 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Parliament — Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks — Claim for non-pecuniary damages — Immunity of Members of the European Parliament)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 October 2008 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07)
   (Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Parliament - Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks - Claim for non-pecuniary damages - Immunity of Members of the European Parliament)
   (2008/C 313/09)
   Language of the cases: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Alfonso Luigi Marra

      Respondents: Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) and Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) — Claim for non-pecuniary damages in relation to insulting remarks made by a Member of the European Parliament — Competence of the civil court to rule as to the existence or otherwise of privilege in the absence of a decision of the European Parliament
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Community rules relating to the immunity of Members of the European Parliament must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for damages brought against a Member of the European Parliament in respect of opinions he has expressed,

               —

               where the national court which has to rule on such an action has received no information regarding a request by that Member to the European Parliament seeking defence of the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, it is not obliged to request the European Parliament to give a decision on whether the conditions for that immunity are met;

               —

               where the national court is informed of the fact that that Member has made a request to the European Parliament for defence of that immunity, within the meaning of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, it must stay the judicial proceedings and request the European Parliament to issue its opinion as soon as possible;

               —

               where the national court considers that that Member enjoys the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, it is obliged to dismiss the action brought against the Member concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.