10.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 312/21
Ð declare that the applicants suffered loss as a result of          point out that the Commission was judge and party in the
    that improper conduct,                                          case and conclude that the defendant institution thus
                                                                    infringed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
                                                                    Rights.
Ð declare that the Union is required to compensate that
    loss,
                                                                    The applicants submit that, as a result of that unlawful
Ð take formal note that Groupe Perry estimates that loss            conduct, Groupe Perry can no longer continue to work
    to be ECU 10 000 000,                                           with the Commission, which was its only customer, nor is
                                                                    it able to find other customers because of the negative
                                                                    publicity received by it in the international press. Its
Ð take formal note that Isibiris estimates its loss to be           business is therefore ruined and it claims the sum of ECU
    ECU 500 000,                                                    10 000 000 in respect of material and non-material loss.
Ð order the Union to pay all the costs of the
    proceedings.                                                    Isibiris is seeking the sum of ECU 500 000 by way of
                                                                    compensation for non-material loss, together with a
                                                                    declaration that it is not required to repay the sum of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 ECU 540 000 claimed by the Commission.
The applicants are seeking compensation for the loss they
consider they suffered as a result of the steps taken against
them by the Commission because of alleged irregularities
committed by them in the performance of certain
contracts entered into in the context of the European
Union humanitarian aid programmes for Bosnia and the                       Removal from the register of Case T-285/97 (1)
Great Lakes region of Africa. According to the applicants,                                  (98/C 312/49)
the Commission penalised the two companies by failing to
pay the invoices due, by ordering its departments not to
enter into contracts with them, by assigning employees of                          (Language of the case: English)
the Perry Group to other companies and by requiring
Isibiris to repay a large sum of money.
                                                                    By order of 7 July 1998, the President of the Second
The applicants submit that the Commission's action was              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
based on a report drawn up by the Unit for the                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) following an               of Case T-285/97: Kuljetusliike R. Pynnönen Oy v.
enquiry carried out by that body, without first hearing the         Commission of the European Communities.
companies in question, to which it even refused to provide
a copy of the aforementioned reports. Furthermore, they             (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.


title: Action brought on 20 August 1997 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Council of the European Union (Case C-301/97)

text:
C 318/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 . allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the              1 . annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June
     Court of First Instance in Case T-504/93 ;                             1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of
                                                                            imports of rice originating in the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories;
2.   annul the Decision contained in the Commission 's
     letter of 24 June 1993 ; and                                    2 . order the Council to pay the costs.
3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of Tierce                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Ladbroke both in the proceedings before the Court of
     First Instance and before this Court .
                                                                     — Breach of the principle of legal certainty: the Council
                                                                            has failed to specify what the legal position will be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         once the tariff quota laid down in Article 1 of
                                                                            Regulation ( EC ) No 1036/97 has been exhausted.
                                                                            Individuals do not know what their rights and
Infringement of Community law                                               obligations will be after that quota has been
                                                                            exhausted .
— in that the Court of First Instance failed to correctly
     define the relevant product market. It upheld the               — Infringement of Article 7 ( 5 ) of the Agreement on
     approach of the Commission and relied on a spurious                    Safeguards (') and of Article 228 ( 7) of the EC Treaty:
     'comparison ' between the principal betting market and                 Article 7 ( 5 ) of the Agreement is applicable to
    the ancillary market rather than to consider whether                    relations between the Community and OCTs which,
     French sound and pictures were substitutable from the                  by virtue of the Agreement establishing the World
     demand and supply side,                                               Trade Organization, are in the same position as third
                                                                            countries . The Kingdom of the Netherlands approved
                                                                           the Agreement establishing the World Trade
— in that the Court of First Instance failed to appreciate                  Organization on behalf of the Netherlands Antilles
     the legal significance of the decision of the societes de              and Aruba by National Law of 21 December 1994 .
     courses to permit the PMU, via the PMI, to licence
     French sound and pictures in one Member State
     outside France, namely Germany, and the refusal to              — Infringement of Article 109 ( 1 ) of Council Decision
     allow an equivalent licence to be granted in another                   91 /482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
     Member State outside France, namely Belgium.                           overseas countries and territories with the European
     Additionally, the motive for such refusal was to limit                 Economic Community ( 2 ), hereinafter 'the OCT
    competition from the Ladbroke group, both in respect                   Decision ' ( see Case C-110/97, OJ C 181 , 14 . 6. 1997,
     of the PMU's Belgian ally, the Belgian PMU and                        p. 1 ).
    generally. Whether such conduct is to be termed
     discriminatory, arbitrary or a partitioning of the              — Infringement of Article 109 ( 2 ) of the OCT Decision
    common market is of less importance than the                            ( see Case C-110/97).
    conclusion that such conduct cannot be objectively
    justified.
                                                                     — Misuse of powers: since the Commission has not
                                                                            succeeded in persuading the Council to accept the
                                                                           amendment of the OCT Decision advocated by it, it is
                                                                            attempting to achieve one of the most significant
                                                                            objectives of the review of the OCT Decision proposed
                                                                            by it, namely the cessation of imports of rice
Action brought on 20 August 1997 by the Kingdom of the                     originating in the OCTs or at least a substantial
   Netherlands against the Council of the European Union                   reduction thereof, by other, impermissible means .
                        ( Case C-301/97
                                                                     — Infringement of Annex IV to the OCT Decision ( see
                          ( 97/C 318/14 )                                   Case C-110/97).
An action against the Council of the European Union was              — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty ( see Case
                                                                            C-110/97).
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 20 August 1997 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by J. S. van den Oosterkamp and             ( ) See Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
M. A. Fierstra, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of                Organization.
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p. 1 .
Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue
C. M. Spoo .


title: Case C-10/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2017 by Polo Club against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2016 in Case T-67/15: Polo Club v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/2

         Appeal brought on 11 January 2017 by Polo Club against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2016 in Case T-67/15: Polo Club v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-10/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Polo Club (represented by: D. Masson, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Lifestyle Equities CV
   By order of 1 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 1999 in Case C-33/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt): Colim NV v Bigg's Continent Noord NV (Approximation of laws - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Directive 83/189/EEC - Labelling and presentation of products - Consumer protection - Language)

text:
C 204/18                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            17.7.1999
3. In Member States with a federal structure, reparation for damage        2. The direct effect of a directive, where the deadline for its
     caused to individuals by national measures taken in breach of              transposition into national law has expired, is not affected by the
     Community law need not necessarily be provided by the federal              notification made by a Member State pursuant to Article
     State in order for the obligations of the Member State concerned           100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 95(4)
     under Community law to be fulfilled.                                       to (9) EC) seeking confirmation of provisions of national law
                                                                                derogating from the directive, even where the Commission fails
                                                                                to respond to that notification.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 1 June 1999                                                              of 3 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-33/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-319/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt): Colim NV v
the Landskrona Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings against                                      Bigg’s Continent Noord NV (1)
                          Antoine Kortas (1)
                                                                           (Approximation of laws — Procedure for the provision of
(Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                   information in the field of technical standards and regu-
Article 95(4) to (9) EC) — Directive 94/36/EC on colours                   lations — Directive 83/189/EEC — Labelling and presen-
for use in foodstuffs — Notification of national legislation                  tation of products — Consumer protection — Language)
derogating therefrom — No confirmation from the Com-
                          mission — Effect)                                                            (1999/C 204/35)
                           (1999/C 204/34)                                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-33/97, Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                           (ex Article 177) by the Rechtbank van Koophandel (Commer-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     cial Court), Hasselt, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                         proceedings pending before that court between Colim NV and
                                                                           Bigg’s Continent Noord NV — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                           Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
In Case C-319/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                 procedure for the provision of information in the field of
EC (ex Article 177) by the Landskrona Tingsrätt, Sweden, for               technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before            amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988
that court against Antoine Kortas — on the interpretation of               (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), and of the principles applicable to
Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                    product labelling — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Article 95(4) to (9) EC) and European Parliament and Council               J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in                   Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
foodstuffs (OJ 1994 L 237, p. 13) — the Court, composed of                 L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and P. Jann (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Manci-            3 June 1999, in which it held:
ni, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm
and M. Wathelet; Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
                                                                           1. The obligation to give mandatory labelling particulars, instruc-
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                tions for use and guarantee certificates for products at least in the
judgment on 1 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                language or languages of the area in which those products are
                                                                                placed on the market does not constitute a ‘technical regulation’
1. A directive can have direct effect even though its legal basis is            within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28
     Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article               March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
     95 EC) and Article 100a(4) allows Member States to request a               information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
     derogation from the implementation of that directive.                      as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of March 1988.
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/19
2. In the absence of full harmonisation of language requirements           The decision by a person employed in a consular post to opt, in
    applicable to information appearing on imported products, the          accordance with Article 16(2), first sentence, of Council Regulation
    Member States may adopt national measures requiring such               (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
    information to be given in the language of the area in which the       security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
    products are sold or in another language which may be readily          to members of their families moving within the Community, as
    understood by consumers in that area, provided that those              amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2
    national measures apply without distinction to all national and        December 1996, to be subject to the social security legislation of the
    imported products and are proportionate to the objective of            sending Member State of which he is a national does not have the
    consumer protection which they pursue. They must, in particular,       effect that his spouse may no longer claim a social security advantage
    be restricted to information which the Member State makes              which, irrespective of the social cover of her spouse, is guaranteed to
    mandatory and which cannot be appropriately conveyed to                her by the legislation of the Member State in which she resides.
    consumers by means other than translation.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 June 1999
                           of 3 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-417/97: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-211/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
the Landessozialgericht Niedersachsen): Paula Gómez
             Rivero v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Transferable securities — Investment services — Directive
(Social security — Article 16(2), first sentence, of Regulation
                                                                                93/22/EEC — Partial implementation)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 — Right of option — Effects)
                          (1999/C 204/36)                                                             (1999/C 204/37)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-211/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                 In Case C-417/97, Commission of the European Communities
EC (ex Article 177) by the Landessozialgericht Niedersachsen               (Agent: Christina Tufvesson) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Higher Social Court, Lower Saxony) (Germany) for a prelimi-               (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — application for a declaration that,
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                   by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period all
between Paula Gómez Rivero and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit,                  the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, including
joined party: Federal Republic of Germany — on the interpret-              any relevant sanctions, necessary for it to comply with Council
ation of Article 16(2), first sentence, of Council Regulation              Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                     in the securities field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Grand Duchy
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed              of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
persons and to members of their families moving within the                 31 of that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                    of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) —                   (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 June
the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,               1999, in which it:
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,              1. Declared that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 June 1999, in which it                     period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,
held that:                                                                      including any relevant sanctions, necessary for it to comply with


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 1999 in Case C-412/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariate di Bologna): ED Srl v Italo Fenocchio (Free movement of goods - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of payments -National provision prohibiting the issue of a summary payment order to be served outside national territory - Compatibility)

text:
C 246/4                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                             of 29 June 1999
                          of 22 June 1999
                                                                            in Case C-206/97 Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
in Case C-412/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariate di Bologna): ED Srl v Italo
                            Fenocchio (1)                                   (Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden — Fisheries —
                                                                            Determination of total allowable catches of certain fish —
                                                                                Cod)
(Free movement of goods — Freedom to provide services —
Free movement of payments —National provision pro-
hibiting the issue of a summary payment order to be served                                            (1999/C 246/07)
          outside national territory — Compatibility)
                          (1999/C 246/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-206/97: Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Lotty Nordling)
                                                                            v Council of the European Union (Agents Rüdiger Bandilla,
                                                                            Eva Karlsson and Lauri Railas), supported by the Commission
In Case C-412/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  of the European Communities (Agents: Christina Tufvesson
EC (ex Article 177) by the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna                 and Thomas van Rijn) — application for the annulment of
(District Magistrates’ Court, Bologna), Italy, for a preliminary            Council Regulation (EC) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the
ED Srl and Italo Fenocchio on the interpretation of Articles 34             total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under
and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29                  which they may be fished (OJ 1997 L 66, p. 1) as regards the
EC and 49 EC) and Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b), for the                   allocation of cod in Zone III b, c and d — the Court,
purpose of determining the compatibility with those pro-                    composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn
visions of a national rule prohibiting the issue of a summary               (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents
payment order to be served outside national territory — the                 of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-
Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President              ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges;
of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón              P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 1999, in
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   which it:
judgment on 22 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
1. Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29            1. Dismisses the application;
    EC) does not preclude national legislation which excludes recourse
    to the procedure for obtaining summary payment orders where
    service on the debtor is to be effected in another Member State of      2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs;
    the Community.
                                                                            3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its
2. A national procedural provision, such as that in question in the              own costs.
    main proceedings, does not constitute a restriction on the freedom
    to make payments.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.


title: Case T-8/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Bank Kargoshaei and Others v Council

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/24

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Bank Kargoshaei and Others v Council
   (Case T-8/11)
   2011/C 72/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bank Kargoshaei, Bank Melli Iran Investment Company, Bank Melli Iran Printing and Publishing Company, Cement Investment & Development Co., Mazandaran Cement Company, Melli Agrochemical Company, Shomal Cement Co., (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1) and paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) and annul the decision contained in the letter of the Council of 28 October 2010;

               —

               declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision of 26 July 2010 (3) and Article 16(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) (EU) No 961/2010 illegal and inapplicable to the applicants;

               —

               order that the Council pay the applicants’ costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the pleas in law which are identical as the pleas in law relied on by the applicant in Case T-7/11, Bank Melli Iran v Council.

      (1)  OJ L 281, p. 81

      (2)  OJ L 281, p. 1

      (3)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP: of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ L 195, p. 39


               22.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/16

         Action brought on 19 October 2011 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-14/11)
   2011/C 374/11
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 October 2011 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it denies access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak).

               2.

               Order the defendant and any interveners to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of DB Schenker, an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’).

               —

               On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The applicants are pursuing a damages claim against Norway Post for losses caused by the infringement. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD) established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 27 June 2008.

               —

               By a letter dated 16 August 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority refused the applicants’ request for access to documents collected during an inspection at the premises of Norway Post between 21 and 24 June 2004. The applicants seek to challenge that refusal under Article 36 SCA.

         The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated DB Schenker’s right of access to documents pursuant to Article 2(1) RAD:

               —

               by wrongfully applying the exception in Article 4(1)(b) RAD concerning privacy and personal integrity,

               —

               by wrongfully applying the exceptions in Article 4(2) RAD concerning commercial interests, inspections and investigations and overriding public interest in disclosure, and

               —

               infringed the right in Article 4(6) RAD to partial access to documents.


title: Case T-500/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Aid for the processing of citrus fruit — Effectiveness of the checks — Proportionality)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-500/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aid for the processing of citrus fruit - Effectiveness of the checks - Proportionality)
   2011/C 319/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: L. Ventrella and G. Palmieri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sector of citrus-fruit processing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-136/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Sanabel Relief Agency v Council

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/30

         Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Sanabel Relief Agency v Council
   (Case T-136/06)
   (2006/C 165/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Garcia, Solicitor, S. Cox, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 561/2003 of 27 March 2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 of 10 February 2006 and of the reference to the applicant in Annex I;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-135/06 Al-Faqih v Council.


title: Case T-312/05: Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/22

         Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou
   (Case T-312/05)
   (2005/C 271/44)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Dimitrios Triantafillou and Dimos Nikopoulos, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Effrosini Alexiadou
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount due has been paid in full;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant, as member of a consortium, Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227-PLASMALEATHER concerning a specific research and technological development programme relating to cold plasma treatment for water-repellent leather.
   The contract provided that the Commission would contribute financially to the proper performance of the project, by payment of a sum which would not exceed EUR 832 362. Within that framework the Commission paid to the defendant, through the coordinator of the consortium, an advance of EUR 23 036.31.
   However, immediately after receipt of that sum the defendant declared to the coordinator that she had stopped the production of leather articles, had decided to move her business activities to a different line, could not guarantee successful conclusion of the project activities and considered that it would be better to leave the project at the beginning of all activities.
   The defendant was repeatedly given notice to pay, but she did not return the amount of the advance although, as the coordinator has certified, she did not participate at all in the research and consequently did not use the advance for such a purpose.
   By its action, the Commission seeks payment of the aforementioned sum owed and the interest due thereon.


title: Case T-43/13: Order of the General Court of 20 March 2014  — Donnici v Parliament (Action for damages — Members of the European Parliament — Verification of credentials — European Parliament’s decision declaring invalid a mandate as a MEP — Annulment of the decision of the Parliament by a judgment of the Court — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/26

         Order of the General Court of 20 March 2014 — Donnici v Parliament
   (Case T-43/13) (1)

   ((Action for damages - Members of the European Parliament - Verification of credentials - European Parliament’s decision declaring invalid a mandate as a MEP - Annulment of the decision of the Parliament by a judgment of the Court - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law))
   2014/C 159/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: V. Vallefuoco and J. Van Gyseghem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered because of the adoption of Parliament’s decision of 24 May 2007 on the verification of his credentials and which was annulled by the judgment of the Court of 30 April 2009 in Joined Cases C-393/07 and C-9/08 Italy and Donnici v Parliament, ECR I-3679.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Deniamino Donnici is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-443/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 October 2006 — Erika Hollmann v Fazenda Pública

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 October 2006 — Erika Hollmann v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-443/06)
   (2006/C 326/75)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erika Hollmann

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Intervener: Ministério Público
   Question referred
   Does Article 43(2) of the Personal Income Tax Code (CIRS), approved by Decree-law No. 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law No. 109-B/2001 of 27 December 2001, which limits the incidence of the tax to 50 % of capital gains realised by persons residing in Portugal, infringe Articles 12, 18, 39, 43 and 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community by excluding from that limitation capital gains realised by a person residing in another Member State of the European Union?


title: Case C-146/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Prof. Dr. Claus Scholl v Stadtwerke Aachen AG

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Prof. Dr. Claus Scholl v Stadtwerke Aachen AG
   (Case C-146/09)
   2009/C 153/49
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Prof. Dr. Claus Scholl

      Defendant: Stadtwerke Aachen AG

      Question referred

   Is the third example in the third indent of Article 6(3) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that there is no right of withdrawal in respect of distance contracts for the mains supply of electricity and gas?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.


title: Case C-286/06: Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/23

         Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-286/06)
   (2006/C 212/39)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H.Støvelbæk and R.Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/48/EC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three year's duration (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof, by refusing to recognise the professional qualification of engineer obtained in Italy and by making admission to internal exams for promotion in the civil service subject in the case of engineers with professional qualifications obtained in another Member State to academic recognition of those qualifications;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission has received numerous complaints concerning the rejection by the competent Spanish authorities of applications for recognition of the professional qualification of engineer obtained in Italy for the purpose of exercising in Spain the profession of Road, Canal and Port Engineer.
   Under Article 3 of Directive 89/48/EEC the Spanish authorities are required to allow any national of a Member State who holds the diploma required for pursuing a regulated profession in another Member State to take up and pursue that profession. According to the facts set out by the Commission,

               (1)

               the profession of Road, Canal and Port Engineer is a regulated profession in Spain;

               (2)

               the complainants are nationals of a Member State;

               (3)

               the diploma required in Italy for taking up the profession of engineer is the Diploma de Laurea in Ingegneria Civile together with the Abilitazione all'esercizio della professione di ingegnere. The complainants hold both qualifications and are therefore entitled to pursue the profession of engineer in Italy; and

               (4)

               the combined qualification composed of the Laurea in Ingegneria Civile and the Abilitazione all'esercizio della professione di ingegnere meets all the requirements of the definition of 'diploma' in Article 1(a) of the Directive.

         Consequently, the Spanish authorities were required to allow the complainants to take up the profession of Road, Canal and Port Engineer. By refusing them access to the profession, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Directive.
   It is also apparent from the facts stated by the Commission that the Spanish authorities make participation in the internal exams for promotion in the civil service where possession of the diploma of engineer is required subject, in the case of diplomas acquired outside Spain, to their being ‘approved’, that is to say, recognised as academically equivalent to a Spanish diploma. That requirement makes it more difficult to achieve promotion within the service, and hence to pursue the profession of engineer, for nationals of a Member State who hold the professional diploma required in another Member State, and is also contrary to Article 3 of the Directive.

      (1)   OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.


title: Case C-74/12: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam
   (Case C-74/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 303/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Criminal proceedings against

   Abd Aziz Tam

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is clearly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 1998 in Case C-203/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV and Others v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Shipments of waste for recovery - Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity)

text:
5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 278/5
2a. The reference to the storage of materials in point R 13          (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary ruling in
      of Annex II B to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of               the proceedings pending before that court between Chemi-
      15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/             sche Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV and Others and Minister
      156/EEC of 18 March 1991, must be interpreted as               van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieube-
      covering not only cases in which storage takes place           heer Ð on the interpretation of Articles 34, 86, 90 and
      in the undertaking in which the other operations               130t of the EC Treaty, of Council Directive 75/442/EEC
      mentioned in that Annex must be carried out but also           of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39), as
      cases in which storage precedes transport to such an           amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ
      undertaking, regardless of whether the latter is               L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32), and of Council Regulation (EEC)
      established inside or outside the Community.                   No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
                                                                     control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
                                                                     European Community (OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm
2b. The information listed in Article 11(1) of Regulation            (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
      (EEC) No 259/93 constitutes the minimum evidence               P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges;
      which the competent authority may, in the absence of           F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
      notification, require in order to establish that green        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      waste' is intended for recovery.                               25 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
3.    Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 must be interpreted as
      meaning that the Member State of destination may
      not unilaterally return waste to the Member State of           1. Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
      dispatch without prior notification to the latter; the             waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
      Member State of dispatch may not oppose its return                 18 March 1991 and Council Regulation (EEC)
      where the Member State of destination produces a                   No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
      duly motivated request to that effect.                             control of shipments of waste within, into and out of
                                                                         the European Community cannot be interpreted as
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                                 meaning that the principles of self-sufficiency and
                                                                         proximity are applicable to shipments of waste for
                                                                         recovery. Article 130t of the EC Treaty does not
                                                                         permit Member States to extend the application of
                                                                         those principles to such waste when it is clear that
                                                                         they create a barrier to exports which is not justified
                                                                         either by an imperative measure relating to protection
                                                                         of the environment or by one of derogations provided
                                                                         for by Article 36 of that Treaty.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 25 June 1998
in Case C-203/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            2. Article 90 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
the Nederlandse Raad van State): Chemische Afvalstoffen                  Article 86, precludes rules such as the long-term plan
Dusseldorp BV and Others v. Minister van Volkshuis-                      whereby a Member State requires undertakings to
     vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (1)                   deliver their waste for recovery, such as oil filters, to a
                                                                         national undertaking on which it has conferred the
(Shipments of waste for recovery Ð Principles of self-
                                                                         exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste unless
                  sufficiency and proximity)
                                                                         the processing of their waste in another Member State
                         (98/C 278/08)                                   is of a higher quality than that performed by that
                                                                         undertaking if, without any objective justification and
                                                                         without being necessary for the performance of a task
                                                                         in the general interest, those rules have the effect of
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                            favouring the national undertaking and increasing its
                                                                         dominant position.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-203/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State


title: Case C–503/08: Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C–503/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/62

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case C-204/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Access to environmental information — Bodies or institutions acting in a legislative capacity — Confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities — Condition that the confidentiality must be provided for by law)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-204/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Access to environmental information - Bodies or institutions acting in a legislative capacity - Confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities - Condition that the confidentiality must be provided for by law)
   2012/C 98/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flachglas Torgau GmbH

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the second sentence of Article 2(2) and indent (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — National legislation exempting the supreme federal authorities from the obligation to provide information where they act in the context of the legislative process and providing generally that a request for information must be refused where disclosure of the information will adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings — Limits of the power of the Member States to exclude bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of ‘public authority’ under Directive 2003/4/EC — Conditions of application of the exception for the confidentiality of proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the option given to Member States by that provision of not regarding ‘bodies or institutions acting in a … legislative capacity’ as public authorities may be applied to ministries to the extent that they participate in the legislative process, in particular by tabling draft laws or giving opinions, and that option is not subject to the conditions set out in the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of that directive.

               2.

               The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning that the option given to Member States by that provision of not regarding bodies or institutions acting in a legislative capacity as public authorities can no longer be exercised where the legislative process in question has ended.

               3.

               Indent (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition that the confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities must be provided for by law can be regarded as fulfilled by the existence, in the national law of the Member State concerned, of a rule which provides, generally, that the confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities is a ground for refusing access to environmental information held by those authorities, in so far as national law clearly defines the concept of ‘proceedings’, which is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case T-354/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — TF1 v Commission (State aid — Financing of France Télévisions by the audiovisual licence fee — Constant review of existing aid — Recommendation for the adoption of appropriate measures — Member State’s commitments accepted by the Commission — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Nature of the contested measure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Altmark judgment)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — TF1 v Commission
   (Case T-354/05) (1)

   (State aid - Financing of France Télévisions by the audiovisual licence fee - Constant review of existing aid - Recommendation for the adoption of appropriate measures - Member State’s commitments accepted by the Commission - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Nature of the contested measure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Altmark judgment)
   2009/C 113/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, acting as Agents); and France Télévisions S.A. (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and D. Tayar, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1166 final of 20 April 2005 on aid granted to France Télévisions [aid E 10/2005 (ex C 60/1999) — France, Audiovisual licence fee].

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by France Télévisions SA;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case C-376/04: Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/23

         Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-376/04)
   (2004/C 262/40)
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 31 October 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 201 of 31.7.2002, p. 37.


title: Case T-357/02 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony — Aid for coaching, participation in fairs, cooperation and design promotion — Decision declaring the aid scheme in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market — Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises — Failure to exercise discretion — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission
   (Case T-357/02 RENV) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony - Aid for coaching, participation in fairs, cooperation and design promotion - Decision declaring the aid scheme in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market - Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises - Failure to exercise discretion - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 269/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion) (OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.


title: Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-406/97)

text:
7.2.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/11
3. If so:                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in
                                                                   the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
    Should Article 522 in conjunction with Article 526(4)          Landesregierung v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta
    of the Provisions implementing the Community                   Entwurf- und Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3)
    Customs Code, in the versions enacted by Article 1,            Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and (4) Maria-Margareta
    points 16 and 18, of Commission Regulation (EC)                                          Junkersdorf
    No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ L 346,
    31.12.1994, p. 1), also be applied to customs                                         (Case C-407/97)
    declarations before 7 January 1995?                                                     (98/C 41/21)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 October
                                                                   1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission                5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
                         Luxembourg                                v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta Entwurf- und
                       (Case C-406/97)                             Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3) Hans-
                                                                   Eberhard      Junkersdorf      and   (4)  Maria-Margareta
                         (98/C 41/20)                              Junkersdorf on the following question:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,             to the Treaties on which the European Union is
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for         founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la          obligations under the treaties on which the European
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.              Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its
                                                                   existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
                                                                   years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
                                                                   in paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
                                                                   Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or          1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation
    Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the             if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian
    return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the         Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
    territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform       laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present
    the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                     case?
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    that Directive,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                         Luxembourg
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
                                                                                (Case C-409/97)
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic                                  (98/C 41/22)
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
so. In the present case, that period expired on
15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
provisions.                                                        Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Marie
                                                                   Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                   Kirchberg.


title: Case T-683/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROMARKER — Earlier Community word mark EURIMARK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)
   (Case T-683/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark EUROMARKER - Earlier Community word mark EURIMARK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brammer GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA (Strassen, Luxembourg)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 1653/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA and Brammer GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (Case R 1653/2012-1) in so far as it was found in that decision that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards the services ‘providing access to database services for searching for the availability and specifications of community trademarks and designs’ in Class 38 covered by the mark applied for;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Brammer GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-270/13: Action brought on 21 May 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/46

         Action brought on 21 May 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA
   (Case T-270/13)
   2013/C 207/77
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società per l'aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio (BG), Italy) (represented by: M. Muscardini, lawyer, G. Greco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it held that certain external costs were ineligible — thereby reducing the co-financing to which the applicant was entitled and seeking the recovery of EUR 158 517,54 — with all the legal consequences thus arising.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the decision of 18 March 2013 adopted by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), concerning the ‘Closure of Action no 2009-IT-91407-S- “STUDY FOR BERGAMO-ORIO AL SERIO AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT INTERMODALITY” — Commission Decision C(2010) 4456’, in so far as it found that the costs related to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which had already been carried out, were not admissible, as a result, requesting that the amount of EUR 158 517,54 be paid back.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007, together with Articles III.4.2.2 and III.4.2.3 of Commission Decision (2010) 4456 of 24 June 2010

                           —

                           It is submitted in this connection that there was a failure to start a ‘complaints’ procedure, under Article III.4.2.3 of the decision to grant the funding.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 17(2) and (6) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together with infringement of Article II.2.3 of Commission Decision (2010) 4456 of 24 June 2010
               The applicant claims in that regard that:

                           —

                           the decision contained contradictory reasoning because, on the one hand, it is claimed there had been an unjustified ‘fragmentation of the contracts’, while on the other hand, it is claimed that the ‘subject-matter of the contracts’ was ‘connected to such an extent’ that those contracts must have formed part of a single awards procedure;

                           —

                           there was an erroneous finding as concerns the improper fragmentation of a single contract because it is contradicted by the contents of Commission Decision (2010) 4456 of 24 June 2010;

                           —

                           there was an absence of any ‘splitting up’ of the contracts or of any ‘subdivision of the projects’;

                           —

                           Directive 2004/17/EC was inapplicable to the contracts as they did meet the thresholds therein due to the absence of any cross-border interest.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of Article I.3.1 of Commission Decision (2010) 4456 of 24 June 2010, of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims, in that regard, that:

                           —

                           the decision contained contradictory reasoning as it conflicted with the recognition and approval already granted by TEN-T EA concerning the SAP (Strategic Action Plan) and the ASR (Action Status Report);

                           —

                           the activities undertaken by SACBO were in conformity with those activities which were the subject of co-financing.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 40(2)(b),(c) and (d) of Directive 2004/17/EC
               The applicant claims in that regard:

                           —

                           that Directive 2004/17/EC is inapplicable to contracts which are the subject of co-financing for the purposes of ‘study’ and ‘research’;

                           —

                           that it was impossible to carry out an open tendering procedure due to the time limits imposed by the co-financing decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging infringement of principle of proportionality
               The applicant alleges that the defendant has disregarded the principle of proportionality by having subjected that alleged breach to a much stricter regime than the regime provided for in cases where co-financing is cancelled.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-219/01 P: Javier Reyna González del Valle v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Grading — Application brought out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 109/17
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                             (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
                       of 6 December 2001
                                                                           in Case C-263/01 P: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the
in Case C-219/01 P: Javier Reyna González del Valle v                                        European Communities (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Competitions — Actions for annulment — Pre-
(Appeal — Officials — Grading — Application brought out                    selection procedure — Conduct of tests — Rights of the
           of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                                      defence — Principle of equal treatment)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/28)
                          (2002/C 109/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-263/01 P: Carla Giulietti, residing in Brussels
                                                                           (Belgium), represented by S. Diana, avocat — appeal against
In Case C-219/01 P: Javier Reyna González del Valle (Agent:               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
J.M. Valoria de Arana) — appeal against the order of the Court             Communities (Second Chamber) of 2 May 2001 in Case
of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)              T-167/99 and T-174/99 Giulietti and Others v Commission
of 28 March 2001 in Case T-130/00 Reyna González del Valle                [2001] ECR FP I-A-93 and II-441, seeking to have that
v Commission [2001] not published, seeking to have that                    judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being
order set aside and the applicant’s claims at first instance               Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
upheld, the other party to the proceedings being Commission                and C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by D. Waelbroeck), Ana
of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curral and J. Gutiér-              Caprile, residing in Brussels, Farbizio Dell’Olio, residing in Bari
rez Gisbert) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                     (Italy), Konrad Fuhrmann, residing in Brussels, and Olivier
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and                        Radelet, residing in Brussels — the Court (First Chamber),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-              composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
6 December 2001, in which it:                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           13 December 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Mr Javier Reyna González del Valle to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders Ms. Giulietti to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case C-18/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2016 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2016 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-18/16)
   (2016/C 098/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

   Is Article 8(3) (a) and (b) of the Reception Directive (1) valid in the light of Article 6 of the Charter (2):

               (1)

               in a situation where a third-country national is detained under Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Reception Directive and, under Article 9 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, (3) has the right to remain in a Member State until a decision on his asylum application has been made at first instance, and

               (2)

               given the Explanation (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) that the limitations which may legitimately be imposed on the rights in Article 6 of the Charter may not exceed those permitted by the ECHR in the wording of Article 5(1)(f), and the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights of the latter provision in, inter alia, the judgment of 22 September 2015, Nabil and Others v Hungary, 62116/12, that the detention of an asylum-seeker is contrary to the aforementioned Article 5(1)(f) if such detention was not imposed with a view to deportation?

      (1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 96).

      (2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007, C 303, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 60).


title: Case C-48/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/31

         Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-48/06)
   (2006/C 60/61)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, (1) and, in any event, by not informing the Commission of their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing Directive 2002/90/EC expired on 4 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 328 of 5.12.2002, p. 17.


title: Case T-480/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BRICOCENTER — Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER)
   (Case T-480/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICOCENTER - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 232/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented initially by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, H. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and G. Mannucci, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghidini, M. Mergati and C. Signorini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-411/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure — Unlimited jurisdiction — Protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment — Reasonable length of proceedings)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/3

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission
   (Case C-411/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure - Unlimited jurisdiction - Protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment - Reasonable length of proceedings))
   (2017/C 063/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (represented by: N. Lenoir, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 May 2016 in Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15, Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG (Directive 2002/83/EC — Article 36 — Transfer of life assurance contracts — Admissibility — The term ‘assurance contract’ — Change in policy conditions)

text:
               2.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/29

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 May 2016
   in Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15,
   Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG
   (Directive 2002/83/EC — Article 36 — Transfer of life assurance contracts — Admissibility — The term ‘assurance contract’ — Change in policy conditions)
   (2017/C 66/08)
   In Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15, Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 May 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 36(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC does not address legal transactions such as those in which an existing unit-linked life assurance policy is transferred via a purchase agreement from one person to another where the insured risk, namely the insured person, under the assurance policy remains the same. A transfer of a unit-linked life assurance policy by a legal transaction does not constitute a change in the policy conditions unless the terms of the assurance policy are also amended, thereby altering the balance of rights and obligations of the parties to the assurance contract. It falls to the referring court to assess the facts of the cases and to determine whether the relevant transfers led to a change in the policy conditions of the unit-linked life assurance policies acquired by the applicants.

               2.

               If a ‘change in the policy conditions’ within the meaning of the Directive has taken place, the referring court needs to consider whether the information listed in Annex III(B)(b)(2) was provided to the second-hand policy holder in a clear, accurate and complete manner, in writing, and in an official language of the EEA State of commitment.

               3.

               It is of no significance for the information obligation of the assurance undertaking whether the former policy holder was an undertaking and the new policy holder is a consumer, unless this difference has led to an amendment to the terms of the assurance contract.

               4.

               The information listed in Annex III(A) of the Directive solely relates to ‘information about the assurance undertaking’ and ‘information about the commitment’. Consequently, whether or not the original policy holder disclosed information about himself so that his own risk or investor profile could be assessed is of no relevance for the information obligation of the assurance undertaking under the Directive.

               5.

               Directives must be implemented into the national legal order of the EEA States with unquestionable binding force and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty. Furthermore, national courts are bound to interpret national law in conformity with EEA law. Under Article 34 SCA, the Court has jurisdiction to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the EEA Agreement upon the request of national courts. After the Court has rendered its judgment, it falls to the referring court to interpret national law in light of the factors clarified by the Court. In cases where a conform interpretation of national law is not sufficient to achieve the result sought by the relevant EEA rule, that matter may be brought before the Court under the procedure prescribed by Article 31 SCA.