title: Case T-118/17: Action brought on 24 February 2017 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/45

         Action brought on 24 February 2017 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament
   (Case T-118/17)
   (2017/C 121/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Plasschaert and E. Montens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Parliament’s decision of December 15th 2016, inasmuch it (i) suspends the payment of the 2017 grant, including the payment of the pre-financing, (ii) limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and (iii) makes the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional on the presentation of a first demand guarantee, and, as a consequence, article I.4.1 of the grant award decision FINS-2017-28 appended to this decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   a)   With respect to the decision to suspend the payment of the 2017 grant including the pre-financing amount for IDDE

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principal of good administration and violates the rights of the defence of IDDE. In particular, the decision was not taken by fair and impartial authority and IDDE was not properly heard nor granted an effective possibility to comment and dispute the accusations directed at it.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches article 208(1) first sentence of the Rules of Application to the Financial Regulation, article 8(a) of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament and article II.13.2 of the Grant Award decision. In particular, the payment of the 2017 grant cannot be suspended based on unverified allegations unrelated to said decision and pertaining allegedly only to the 2015 grant award decision. In addition, the payment of the 2017 grant can only be suspended for reasons of verifications which in present matter have already been performed and have been concluded without any of the alleged suspicions and allegations being definitively confirmed. In consequence, the suspension must be lifted. Finally, the alleged suspicions and presumptions are not sufficient to justify any suspension of the payment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principle of proportionality. In particular, the scope of the measure taken, i.e. the suspension of the payment of the 2017 grant, including its pre-payment, is totally disproportional in comparison to the alleged suspicions and irregularities, even if these would be confirmed.

         b)   with respect to the decision limit the pre-financing at 33 % of the maximum grant amount and to make the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional upon the presentation of a first demand bank guarantee

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principal of good administration and violates the rights of the defence of IDDE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the article 6 of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament, article 134 of the financial regulation and article 206 of the Rules of application of the financial regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality. IDDE has been prejudicially discriminated against in comparison to other foundations and parties which are in objectively similar situations.


title: Case T-195/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 May 2011 — Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union and European Commission (Interim proceedings — Non-contractual liability — Application for interim measures — Inadmissible in part — Want of urgency)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 May 2011 — Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union and European Commission
   (Case T-195/11 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Non-contractual liability - Application for interim measures - Inadmissible in part - Want of urgency)
   2011/C 186/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Cahier and Others (Montchaude, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by E. Sitbon Bercain and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents) and European Commission (represented by D. Bianchi, B. Schima and M. Vollkommer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures and suspension of operation of Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), as maintained in force by Article 128(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-190/00: Action brought on 21 July 2000 by the Regione Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
—    The Commission failed to examine the facts diligently by           Pleas in law and main arguments
     finding that the purported capacity reduction would
     have an effect on competition which would offset the
     detrimental effects of the State aid. The alleged ‘reduction’      The applicants are import/export undertakings established
     of capacity, as described in the contested decision, will          within the Community. Their parent company is Invest-Import
     have no impact on the competitiveness of Delon and will            AG, established in Belgrade. By the contested decision, the
     lead, on the contrary, to a de facto increase in capacity;         applicants have been placed on a list of undertakings which
                                                                        are ‘deemed to be owned or controlled by the Government of
                                                                        the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] or the Government
—    The aid in question was not accompanied by real and                of the Republic of Serbia’ (Article 2(2) of Council Regulation
     effective reductions in capacity as provided for in the            (EC) No 1294/1999 (1)). As a result of this, in accordance with
     Code on Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry (1) as well as        Article 3(1) of the regulation, the applicants’ accounts in
     in Article 87 EC.                                                  Germany and France are frozen.
                                                                        The applicants complain, first of all, that the contested
                                                                        regulation is contrary to Regulation No 1294/1999. They
(1) OJ 1996 C 94, p. 11.                                                maintain that the Commission has committed an error of law
                                                                        in subsuming the applicants under those companies and
                                                                        entities which, via their parent companies, are controlled by
                                                                        the Government or socially owned. On the contrary, the
                                                                        parent company of the applicants is privately owned by the
                                                                        employees of the undertaking.
                                                                        In addition, the applicants raise the objection, in accordance
                                                                        with Article 241 EC, that Regulation No 1294/1999, in the
                                                                        version contained in Regulation No 723/2000, is illegal,
                                                                        inasmuch as their parent company is wrongly treated by those
Action brought on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import                       legal instruments as being ‘socially-owned’.
und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce against the
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicants further plead infringement of their rights of
                                                                        defence and violation of the principle of proportionality.
                         (Case T-189/00)                                Lastly, they claim that the contested regulation contains an
                                                                        insufficient statement of reasons.
                         (2000/C 285/29)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 of 15 June 1999 concern-
                                                                            ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the
                                                                            Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repealing Regulations
                 (Language of the case: German)                             (EC) No 1295/98 and (EC) No 1607/98 (OJ 1999 L 153, p. 63),
                                                                            in the version contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2000
                                                                            of 6 April 2000 (OJ 2000 L 86, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import
und Export GmbH, of Neuss (Federal Republic of Germany),
and Invest Commerce, of Paris, represented by Rolf Wägen-
baur, of Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Brussels.
                                                                        Action brought on 21 July 2000 by the Regione Siciliana
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
—    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of                                             (Case T-190/00)
     29 May 2000 amending Annex II to Council Regulation
     (EC) No 1294/1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a
     ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of                                     (2000/C 285/30)
     Yugoslavia, in so far as it amends Annex II to Regulation
     No 1294/1999 so as to include the second applicant
     under the heading ‘France’ and the first applicant under                               (Language of the case: Italian)
     the heading ‘Germany’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/17
European Communities on 21 July 2000 by the Regione                     Action brought on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edlinger
Siciliana, represented by Francesca Quadri, lawyer, with an               against the Commission of the European Communities
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                (Case T-191/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2000/C 285/31)
—      annul the decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 22 December 1999;                                                    (Language of the case: German)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edling-
                                                                        er, of Vienna, represented by Dr Friedrich Fritsch, Rechtsan-
                                                                        walt, Vienna.
Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision of 22 December 1999 on the State aid scheme                    —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
implemented by Italy for the production, processing and                       ties has unlawfully omitted to take any steps, in response
marketing of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty, in so               to his letters of 6 April and 22 May 2000 requesting the
far as it declares the aid granted pursuant to Article 6 of                   same, with a view to having the illegal measures against
Sicilian Regional Law No 68 of 27 September 1995 in favour                    Austria lifted.
of undertakings operating in the agriculture and fisheries
sectors to be incompatible with the common market and
requires Italy to withdraw the aid in question.                         Pleas in law and main arguments
That Law reproduces, in essence, the scheme set up by Regional          The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He states that, following
Law No 32 of 23 May 1991 on intervention in the agricultural            his arrival at Brussels airport on 9 March 2000, a taxi driver
sector. Article 48 of Regional Law No 32/91 provided for the            refused to drive him into the city centre. That refusal was
grant, during the three-year period from 1991 to 1993, of               attributable to the measures which the Portuguese Presidency
assistance with regard to the interest payable to credit insti-         had communicated to the Austrian Government in a statement
tutions and undertakings on operating loans granted for a               dated 31 January 2000 made on behalf of 14 Member States.
term not exceeding one year to traders established and carrying         The applicant maintains that those measures are contrary to
on business in Sicily at least 70 % of whose turnover was               Community law. He claims that the Commission, as the
accounted for by the sale of fruit and vegetables, including            guardian of the Treaties, was under an obligation to adopt
citrus fruits, outside the territory of the Region. Upon being          decisions in order to have those measures lifted. It unlawfully
notified of that measure, the Commission raised no objection            failed to do so.
to it.
In support of its claims, the applicant Region asserts, as its
principal plea, the existence in the present case of a misuse of
powers, infringement of Article 88(1) of the Treaty and
infringement of Article 253 of the Treaty by reason of the
absence of a proper statement of reasons, as well as violation          Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                      Campos against European Parliament
and of legal certainty. It points out in that regard that Article
6 of the 1995 Law is substantially the same as Article 48 of
the 1991 Law. According to the applicant, once a general aid                                     (Case T-194/00)
scheme has been approved, the Commission should not
undertake an examination of the individual elements of such                                      (2000/C 285/32)
aid. Consequently, in setting out the reasons for which
Article 6 of Law No 68/95 was to be regarded as a new aid
scheme, the Commission totally failed to consider the actual
scope of the provision, arriving at assessments which differed                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
from and contradicted its previous decision approving the aid.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                        Campos, residing in Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho
                                                                        Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.


title: Case C-336/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 21 July 2003, in the case of easyCar (UK) Ltd against Office of Fair Trading

text:
C 226/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
A.    Can Article 3(a), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of               Does the term ‘contracts for the provision of [...] transport [...]
      Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a                 services’, in Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC (1) on the protec-
      general system for the recognition of higher-education               tion of consumers in respect of distance contracts, include
      diplomas awarded on completion of professional education             contracts for the provision of car hire services?
      and training of at least three years" duration (1) be con-
      strued in such a way as to permit restricted recognition by a
      host Member State of the professional qualifications of an
      applicant who possesses the diploma of Ingegnere civile
      idraulico [civil engineer specialising in hydraulics] (awarded       (1) Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      in Italy) and who wishes to pursue that profession in                    of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of
      another Member State whose legislation regulates the pro-                distance contracts — Statement by the Council and the Parliament
      fession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos [civil                re Article 6(1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3(1),
                                                                               first indent (OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19).
      engineer]? The question is based on the assumption that the
      latter profession comprises, in the host Member State, activ-
      ities which do not correspond in all cases to those covered
      by the applicant's diploma and that the evidence of educa-
      tion and training adduced by the applicant does not cover
      certain of the core matters which are generally required for
      the award of the qualification of Ingeniero de Caminos,              Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
      Canales y Puertos (civil engineer) in the host Member State.         the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
B.   Should the reply to the first question be in the affirmative,
     is it compatible with Articles 39 and 43 EC to restrict the                                     (Case C-339/03)
     right of applicants who seek to pursue their professions, in
     a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State                                         (2003/C 226/22)
     other than the one in which they were awarded their
     professional qualification, in such a way that the host               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     Member State is entitled to exclude, under its national               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     legislation, restricted recognition of professional qualifica-        Communities on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the
     tions where such a decision, which in principle implements            European Communities, represented by J.-C. Schieferer and
     Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC, entails the imposi-          M. Van Beek, members of the legal service of the Commission
     tion of certain additional, disproportionate requirements             of the European Communities, with an address for service in
     as regards pursuit of the profession?                                 Luxembourg.
     For these purposes, ‘restricted recognition’ is understood to
     mean that which authorises an applicant to work as an                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
     engineer only in the equivalent sector (hydraulics) of the            Court should:
     more general profession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y
     Puertos (civil engineer) regulated in the host Member State,          1.    find that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
     without requiring him to fulfil the additional requirements                 administrative provisions (in particular the laws, regula-
     laid down in Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC.                       tions and administrative provisions for the full implemen-
                                                                                tation of the Directive in the Bundesländer, with the
                                                                                exception of Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, and Baden-
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                   Württemberg Niedersachsen) necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999 relat-
                                                                                ing to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
                                                                                by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,
                                                                                the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 9 of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of                  2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court dated 21 July 2003, in the case of easyCar (UK)
                Ltd against Office of Fair Trading
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-336/03)
                                                                           The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                          (2003/C 226/21)                                  9 April 2002 without all the Bundesländer having adopted
                                                                           the necessary provisions.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 21 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of easyCar (UK) Ltd             (1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.
and Office of Fair Trading on the following question:


title: Case C-58/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2015 — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2015 — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart
   (Case C-58/15)
   (2015/C 171/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma Theodor Pfister

      Defendant: Landkreis Main-Spessart

      Question referred

               —

               Does the second sentence of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 permit, for the transitional period of 2007, the imposition of meat inspection fees to cover costs under the previous legal provisions (Directive 85/73/EEC in the version of Directive 96/43/EC)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).


title: Case T-260/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Arktouros v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 — Removal of financial assistance granted for an ecological project — Decision ending the project and ordering reimbursement of sums paid by way of an advance — Confirmatory measure — Expiry of the period for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Arktouros v Commission
   (Case T-260/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 - Removal of financial assistance granted for an ecological project - Decision ending the project and ordering reimbursement of sums paid by way of an advance - Confirmatory measure - Expiry of the period for bringing an action - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 171/63)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Etairia prostasias kai diakhirisis fisikou perivallontos kai agrias zois ‘Arktouros’ (Association for the Protection and Management of the Natural Environment and Wildlife ‘Arktouros’) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3181 final of 6 July 2006 ending a project concerning conservation actions in the Northern Pindos National Park (Greece) (Ellas — LIFE03 NAT/GR/000089) and ordering reimbursement of the advance paid to the applicant in respect of the Community financial assistance which had been granted to it in implementation of Commission Decision C(2003) 2919 final of 4 September 2003.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Etairia prostasias kai diakhirisis fisikou perivallontos kai agrias zois ‘Arktouros’ shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 281 of 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-197/01: Action brought on 9 May 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/8                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11.8.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       appeared on the list of 31 March 1989, to whom a
                                                                                settlement proposal was put forward pursuant to
                                                                                Regulation No 2187/93 (2);
—     Infringement of Article 288 EC, violation of the principle
      of the protection of legitimate expectations, non-com-                    —     in the course of settlement negotiations conducted
      pliance with the obligation to provide a statement of                           after 1993 with SLOM producers not initially
      reasons and misinterpretation of the requirement of                             covered by the terms of Regulation No 2187/93
      causality, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance held                         but in respect of whom liability was subsequently
      that the damage suffered by Mr van den Berg after 13 May                        admitted, the Commission did not invoke prescrip-
      1986 was not attributable to the Community: the Court                           tion where the names of the SLOM producers
      of First Instance misconstrued the scope of the principle                       concerned appeared on the list in question, regard-
      of the protection of legitimate expectations, and applied                       less of whether or not the producers concerned had
      it in a manifestly incorrect way vis-à-vis Mr van den Berg.                     in the interim brought proceedings before the Court
      The fact is that, having in 1985-1986 deliberately taken                        of First Instance under Article 215 of the EC Treaty;
      the requisite steps to relocate his holding whilst retaining
      — had he had a ‘normal’ quota — the quota in question,                    —     in its rejoinder in Case T-179/96 Antonissen, the
      Mr van den Berg had a legitimate expectation that he                            Commission withdrew the plea of prescription
      would not be treated differently from a comparable                              initially put forward by it, after being confronted
      ‘normal’ producer merely because he was a SLOM                                  with the letter of 31 March 1989.
      producer. Furthermore, at the time when hechanged his
      holding, Mr van den Berg was entitled to expect that he             —     Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of
      would not thereafter, in 1989, be treated, on a retroactive               legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate
      basis, differently from ‘normal’ producers.                               expectations and the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                reasons, inasmuch as the Gourt of First Instance ruled
                                                                                that Mr van den Berg’s claim was wholly time-barred: the
      Moreover, the Court of First Instance seriously miscon-                   Court of First Instance overlooked (i) the discrepancy
      strued the real scope of the judgment in Herbrink. If, by                 between the wording of the communication of 5 August
      way of derogation from the principle of attachment to                     1992 and that of Article 43 of the Statute and (ii) the
      the land, which forms part of the milk quota system, a                    manner in which the Commission had in practice
      departing tenant is to be permitted to take his quota with                interpreted and applied that communication in relation
      him to his new holding, a SLOM tenant should also be                      to those SLOM producers to whom the letter of 31 March
      allowed, in the same way, to take his milk quota with                     1989 had been addressed.
      him to a new holding.
—     Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of            (1) OJ 1997 C 199, p. 37.
      legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate      (2) OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6.
      expectations and the obligation to provide a statement of
      reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, when
      ruling on the question of prescription, disregarded essen-
      tial facts, or at any rate set out those facts in a manifestly
      erroneous manner in its judgment, and omitted to find
      that the Commission had waived the possibility of relying
      on a plea of prescription as against certain SLOM
      producers, including Mr van den Berg: the SLOM pro-
      ducers made it quite clear that the institutions could not          Action brought on 9 May 2001 by the Kingdom of the
      plead prescription, since the institutions must have been           Netherlands against the Commission of the European
      well aware of the fact that the case of Mulder II was                                          Communities
      meant to be a test case in relation to SLOM producers as
      a whole. There can be no doubt whatever that the
      communication of 5 August 1992 was deliberately                                               (Case C-197/01)
      framed in terms wider than those of Article 43 of the
      Statute; it is quite clear from the wording of that                                           (2001/C 227/12)
      communication that the Community waived its right to
      plead prescription in respect of periods prior to 5 August
      1992 as against any milk producer who had applied to                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      the institutions prior to that date, regardless of when that        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      happened.                                                           Communities on 9 May 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                          Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and C.A.H.M.
                                                                          ten Dam, as Agents.
      The Court of First Instance failed to mention certain
      established facts in the contested judgment, in particular          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the fact that:
                                                                          1.    Annul Regulation No 396/2001 (1) of 27 February 2001
      —      prescription was not taken into consideration with                 providing for the continued application of safeguard
             regard to any of the SLOM producers whose names                    measures for imports from overseas countries and terri-
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/9
      tories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
      of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001;                Tribunal Administrativo, 2a Secçao, by judgment of that
                                                                       court of 4 April 2001 in the case of Fazenda Pública
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                             against Antero & CC.a, Lda
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Netherlands refers to the application made in Case                                         (Case C-203/01)
C-452/00 (2).
(1) OJ L 58 of 28.02.2001, p. 13.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001, p. 12.                                                              (2001/C 227/14)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                       Administrativo, 2a Secçao (Second Chamber of the Supreme
                                                                       Administrative Court), of 4 April 2001, which was received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 17 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       in the case of Fazenda Pública against Antero & CC.a, Lda on
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January
                                                                       the following questions:
2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)
    v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
                         (Case C-198/01)                               1.   What is the meaning and scope of the expression
                                                                            ‘prise en compte’ used in the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1)
                         (2001/C 227/13)                                    of 24 July 1979?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 January 2001 by the
First Chamber of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale                2.   Was the official act by which the amount of the import
(Regional Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at               duties or export duties to be collected by the competent
the Court Registry on 11 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling               authorities is duly determined referred to in Article 1(2)(c)
in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità              of that regulation ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in the
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato on the following                    accounts) or was it ‘liquidaçao’ (assessment), calculation
questions:                                                                  or computation of those duties by the customs auth-
                                                                            orities?
(1) Where an agreement between undertakings adversely
      affects Community trade, and where that agreement is
      required or facilitated by national legislation which
      legitimises or reinforces those effects, specifically with       3.   On 19 April 1988, was ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in
      regard to the determination of prices or market-sharing               the accounts) a procedural requirement essential for
      arrangements, does Article 81 [EC] require or permit the              the validity of the assessment or was it a procedural
      official anti-trust Authority to disapply that measure                requirement rendering it enforceable or payable?
      and to penalise the anti-competitive conduct of the
      undertakings or, in any event, to prohibit it for the future,
      and if so, with what legal consequences?                         4.   On 19 April 1988, did assessment (calculation or compu-
                                                                            tation) of import duties duly notified to the debtor for
(2) For the purposes of applying Article 81(1) [EC], is
                                                                            post-clearance recovery, even where there is no entry in
      it possible to regard national legislation under which
                                                                            the accounts, render the customs debt due and payable?
      competence to fix the selling prices of a product is
      delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
      between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to
      which the relevant producers are obliged to belong, as           5.   Did the appeal against the order for payment of the
      leaving room for competition which is open to hindrance,              customs authorities which had refused to grant the
      restriction or distortion by the autonomous conduct of                application for remission of post-clearance recovery of
      those undertakings?                                                   duty and which was before the Portuguese courts from
                                                                            1988 until 15 November 1995 have the effect of
                                                                            suspending the period of three years for post-clearance
                                                                            recovery?


title: Case C-97/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2011 — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2011 — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo
   (Case C-97/11)
   2011/C 238/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amia SpA, in liquidation

      Defendant: Provincia Regionale di Palermo

      Question referred

   In the light of the judgment in Case C-172/08 (1), may paragraphs 26 and 31 of Article 3 of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995 be treated as not to be applied because they are contrary to Article 10 of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) and similarly because they are contrary to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/35/EC (3)?

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2010 (Case C-172/08 Pontina Ambiente v Regione Lazio [2010] ECR I-0000).

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.


title: Case C-99/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 4 — Practice of the legal profession — Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) — Router for RPVA access — Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State — Discriminatory measure)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
   (Case C-99/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 4 - Practice of the legal profession - Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) - Router for RPVA access - Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State - Discriminatory measure))
   (2017/C 239/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue

      Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

      Intervening party: Ministère public

      Operative part of the judgment

   The refusal, on the part of the competent authorities of a Member State, to issue a router for access to the private virtual network for lawyers to a lawyer duly registered at a Bar of another Member State, for the sole reason that that lawyer is not registered at a Bar of the first Member State, in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services, in situations where the obligation to work in conjunction with another lawyer is not imposed by law, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 4 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 57 TFEU. It is for the national court to determine whether such a refusal, in the light of the context in which it is put forward, genuinely serves the objectives of consumer protection and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the resulting restrictions do not appear to be disproportionate in regard to those objectives.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case T-282/09: Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/40

         Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM
   (Case T-282/09)
   2009/C 220/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale des Logis (Paris, France) (represented by B. Brisset, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 in Case R 1511/2008-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a green square for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 — Application No 6 468 789

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the representation of a square with convex edges in a particular and specific green colour is distinctive with regard to the goods and services for which the registration was sought, in so far as those elements give the mark a particular appearance for those goods and services.


title: Case F-95/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Seigneur v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Members of the Staff Committee — Remuneration — Salary — Additional increase in salary — Eligibility)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/92

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Seigneur v ECB
   (Case F-95/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - ECB staff - Members of the Staff Committee - Remuneration - Salary - Additional increase in salary - Eligibility))
   (2016/C 048/104)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini, D. Camilleri Podestà and M. López Torres, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 25 February 2014 not to grant an additional salary increase for 2014 to Mr Seigneur;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3)

               The European Central Bank shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Seigneur.

      (1)  OJ C 24/11/2014, p. 63.


title: Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by C. Williams against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/94 between C. Williams and the Court of Auditors (Case C-156/96 P)

text:
No C 180/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by C. Williams against the                 1 . Are Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty establishing the
judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber                     EEC to be interpreted as precluding rules under which
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  reimbursement of the cost of benefits is subject to
in Case T-146/94 between C. Williams and the Court of                       authorization from the insured person's social security
                                Auditors                                    institution if the benefits are provided in a Member State
                          Case C- 1 5 6/96 P                                other than the State in which that person resides ?
                            ( 96/C 180/59 )
                                                                        2 . Is the answer to the first question any different if the aim
                                                                            of the rules is to maintain a balanced medical and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
                                                                            hospital service accessible to everybody in a given
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            region ?
European Communities in Case T-146/94 between C.
Williams and the Court of Auditors was brought before the
 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
 1996 by C. Williams, represented by Eric Boigelot, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-3 27/93 ( )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                                      ( 96/C 180/61 )
 1 , declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                    By order of 29 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
2 , consequently :                                                      from the register of Case C-327/93 ( reference for a
     ( a ) annul in its entirety the judgment delivered;                preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                        Bench Division ): The Queen v . Secretary of State for the
     ( b ) itself determine the case and, adjudicating on his           National Heritage, ex parte: ( 1 ) Continental Television
           initial application , annul the decision of 24 January       BVio, ( 2 ) Continental Television pic and ( 3 ) Mark Roy
                                                                        Garner .
           1994 , notified by bailiff service on the same day,
           and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
           decision of 23 January 1994 implicitly rejecting the         (') OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
           complaint submitted by the appellant on
           23 September 1993 under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff
           Regulations;
     ( c ) order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of the
           appeal and of the proceedings at first instance .                  Removal from the register of Case C-120/94 ( 1 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( 96/C 180/62 )
Infringement of Community law. The appellant maintains                  By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
the pleas and claims advanced by him in the proceedings                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
before the Court of First Instance ( M.                                 from the register of Case C-120/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
0 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 12 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment
of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Raymond Kohll                   Removal from the register of Case C-145/94 ( 1 )
                 v . Union des Caisses de Maladie                                                 ( 96/C 180/63 )
                          ( Case C-158/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/60 )                             By order of 13 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/94 ( reference for a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Penal No 2 de
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                        Lleida ): criminal proceedings against José Antonio Alonso
Cassation ( Court of Cassation ) of the Grand Duchy of                  Rubio .
Luxembourg of 25 April 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie               (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
( Union of Health Insurance Funds ) on the following
questions :


title: Joined Cases F-14/05 and F-20/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Albert-Bousquet and Others and Johansson and Others v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Albert-Bousquet and Others and Johansson and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases F-14/05 and F-20/05) (1)

   2009/C 193/62

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31 and C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 27.


title: Case C-31/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 23 January 2017 — Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’économie et des finances

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 23 January 2017 — Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’économie et des finances
   (Case C-31/17)
   (2017/C 112/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Sucrerie de Toury SA

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Ministre de l’économie et des finances

      Question referred

   Do energy products used for combined heat and electricity generation come exclusively within the scope of the optional power to exempt conferred by Article 15(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (1) or do they also come, as regards the proportion of those products the consumption of which corresponds to the generation of electricity, within the scope of the obligation to exempt provided for by Article 14(1)(a) of that directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-389/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessaloniki): Siegfried Klattner v. Greek State (Tax exemptions applicable to temporary and permanent importation of means of transport - Directive 83/182/EEC)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 228/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . Article 3 of Directive 83/182/EEC has direct effect
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                   and confers on individuals rights which they may
                                                                           assert against a Member State that has failed to
                        of 29 May 1997                                     transpose that Directive into domestic law, or has
in Case C-3 89/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 transposed it incorrectly, and which the national
the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessaloniki ): Siegfried                       courts must safeguard.
                   Klattner v. Greek State (')
(Tax exemptions applicable to temporary and permanent                  3 . Article 3 of Directive 83/182/EEC must be interpreted
importation of means of transport — Directive 83/182/                      as precluding domestic legislation under which the
                               EEC)                                         customs duties and other taxes applicable together
                                                                            with additional duty equal to the amount of those
                          ( 97/C 228/01 )                                  duties and taxes are to be payable immediately where
                                                                           a second private vehicle is imported temporarily.
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-389/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Thessaloniki
( Greece ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
pending before that court between Siegfried Klattner and                                        of 29 May 1997
Greek State — on the interpretation of Council Directive
83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within                   in Case C-14/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Community for certain means of transport temporarily               the Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Brussels ): criminal
imported into one Member State from another ( OJ No                                 proceedings against Paul Denuit ( ! )
L 105 , 23 . 4 . 1983 , p. 59 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),          (Directive 89/552ZEEC — Telecommunications —
composed of: J C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                 Television broadcasting — Jurisdiction over broadcasters)
Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
( Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,                                                 ( 97/C 228/02 )
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in                                     (Language of the case: French)
which it has ruled :
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 1 . Article 3 of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of                                published in the European Court Reports)
      28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the
      Community for certain means of transport temporarily
      imported into one Member State from another must                 In Case C-14/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for                 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Premiere Instance,
      which it provides may be granted in respect of more              Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
      than one private vehicle per person.                             proceedings before that court against Paul Denuit — on


title: Case C-227/04 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2004 by Marie-Luise Lindorfer against the judgment delivered on 18 March 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-204/01 between M.-L. Lindorfer and Council of the European Union

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/10

         Appeal brought on 2 June 2004 by Marie-Luise Lindorfer against the judgment delivered on 18 March 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-204/01 between M.-L. Lindorfer and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-227/04 P)
   (2004/C 190/17)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 March 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-204/01 between M.-L. Lindorfer and Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2004 by Marie-Luise Lindorfer, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-204/01;

               —

               consequently, uphold the applicant's claims at first instance and, accordingly;

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 3 November 2000 fixing at 5 years, 5 months and 8 days the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account for the applicant's Community pension following the transfer of her pension rights acquired in Austria prior to her entry into the service of the European Communities and, in so far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated 31 May 2001, to reject the applicant's complaint of 2 February 2001;

               —

               order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal basis devoid of all illegality, the years of pensionable service to be taken into account for the applicant's Community pension following the transfer of her pension rights acquired in Austria;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeal.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance has infringed Article 141 EC and Article 10(4)(b) of the general implementing provisions (1) and breached the principle of non-discrimination and the duty to provide reasons.
   By considering that the Council was entitled to take account, in the conversion formula, of actuarial factors related to the age and sex of the official, the Court disregarded the principle of non-discrimination, in particular in so far as it concerns equal treatment between men and women. In connection with a formula for transferring pension rights acquired in one scheme – at national level – to the Community scheme, the Court endorsed the taking into consideration of a factor which makes a distinction between workers according to their sex and treats female workers less favourably and justified use of such a formula on budgetary grounds. Furthermore, the Court disregarded its obligation to provide a statement of reasons by failing to answer the applicant's argument seeking to demonstrate that the budget would not be put out of balance by account being taken of an actuarial factor when transferring the years-served to the Communities pensions scheme.
   The Court did not take a position on the validity of the existence of two possible choices, each intended to implement Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, albeit in different ways, which took account of the date of transfer of pension rights on the one hand or of the date on which the official was established. Moreover, by focusing only on the basic salary of the official upon retirement and by failing to examine, in addition, the number of years served, the Court failed to answer the applicant's argument and failed to fulfil its obligation to provide reasons.
   The Court came to erroneous conclusions in law with respect to the facts, in particular those put forward as examples by the applicant. Even supposing that fluctuations in national currencies are the result of circumstances extraneous to the Communities, that in no way exonerates them from ensuring that they observe the principle of non-discrimination, in particular in so far as concerns their staff, nor from laying down, in accordance with that principle, the rules for transferring to the Community pensions scheme the pension rights acquired in a national scheme. That means, specifically, that the Council cannot use conversion rate formulas which do not observe the principle pf non-discrimination. However, it has been proved that that is the case. Indeed, there is no difference between the amounts transferred initially from a national pension scheme, in terms of the principle of non-discrimination, irrespective of whether they come from a ‘week-currency’ country or from a ‘strong-currency’ country. First, the Court found that the manner in which such amounts were treated varied according to the status of the country concerned and that transfers from ‘week-currency’ countries were treated more favourably. Finally, the Court failed to examine, and thus to show, in what way such differentiated treatment is objectively justified. The fact that it is the result of circumstances outwith the control of the Communities does not constitute such justification since it is the Council which decided that there were to be two approaches and it is again itself which decides to whom to apply them.

      (1)  Decision of the Council of 13 July 1992


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Case C-110/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges): Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting (INZO) v. Belgian State (VAT - Concept of economic activity - Status of taxable person - Activity confined to a profitability study for a project, followed by the abandonment of the project)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133 /7
Northern Ireland ( Agent: John D. Colahan, assisted by                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
Eleanor Sharpston, Barrister ), applications for the                   uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the
annulment of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 685/93 of                Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
24 March 1993 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89                    President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho
laying down detailed rules for the application of general and          de Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), and L. Sevon,
special intervention measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ         Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman
No L 73 , 1993 , p . 9 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber,                given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it
J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),           rules :
C. Gulmann and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
29 February 1996 , in which it:                                        17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
                                                                       Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                       system of value added tax : uniform basis ofassessment must
1 , dismisses the applications;                                        be interpreted as meaning that where the tax authority has
                                                                       accepted that a company which has declared an intention to
                                                                       commence an economic activity giving rise to taxable
2 , order the French Republic and Ireland to pay the costs,            transactions has the status of a taxable person for the
      including those of the interim proceedings;                      purposes of VAT, the commissioning ofa profitability study
                                                                       in respect of the envisaged activity may be regarded as an
                                                                       economic activity within the meaning of that Article, even if
3 , orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                     the purpose of that study is to investigate to what degree the
      Northern Ireland to bear its own costs .                         activity envisaged is profitable, and that except in cases of
                                                                       fraud or abuse, the status of taxable person for the purpose
                                                                       of VAT may not be withdrawn from that company
(') OJ No C 184 , 7 . 7 . 1993 .
     OJ No C 203 , 27 . 7 . 1993 .                                     retroactively where, in view ofthe results ofthat study, it has
                                                                       been decided not to move to the operational phase, but to
                                                                       put the company into liquidation with the result that the
                                                                       economic activity envisaged has not given rise to taxable
                                                                       transactions .
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber )
                      of 29 February 1996
in Case C-l 10/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges ):                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting ( INZO ) v.                                         of 29 February 1996
                          Belgian State (')
                                                                            in Case C-122/94: Commission of the European
( VAT — Concept of economic activity — Status of taxable                    Community v. Council of the European Union ( 1 )
person — Activity confined to a profitability study for a
    project, followed by the abandonment of the project)                        (Common agricultural policy — State aid)
                           ( 96/C 133/ 13 )                                                      ( 96/C 133/ 14 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                    published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-122/94 : Commission of the European
In Case C- 1 10/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Communities ( Agents : Xenophon Yataganas and Ben
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg                  Smulders ) v . Council of the European Union ( Agents :
( Court of First Instance ), Bruges ( Belgium ), for a                 Ramon Torrent and Diego Canga Fano ) supported by
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              French Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and
court between Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting                   Jean-Louis Falconi ) and by the Italian Republic ( Agent:
( INZO ), in liquidation, and Belgian State — on the                   Professor Luigi Ferrari Bravo ) — application for annulment
interpretation of Article 4(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council         of two Council Decisions of 21 February 1994 under the
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to             relating to the grant of special aid for the distillation of


title: Action brought on 29 April 1996 by Merck & Co. Inc., NV Organon and Glaxo Wellcome plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-60/96)

text:
No C 197/20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 29 April 1996 by Merck & Co. Inc., NV                extent and for such periods as are strictly necessary in
Organon and Glaxo Wellcome pic against the Commission                  order to rectify the situation linked to the serious
                of the European Communities                            difficulties that are liable to persist.
                        {Case T-60/96 )
                         ( 96/C 197/42 )                            — Manifest error of assessment of the facts
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                         Assuming that the Commission did have a power of
                                                                       appraisal in regard to the economic evidence submitted
An action against the Commission of the European                       by the abovementioned Member States under
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Article 379, the applicants state that it was manifestly
Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 1996 by               incorrect in finding that an increase in the volume of
Merck & Co., Inc., NV Organon and Glaxo Wellcome pic,                  imports from Spain of pharmaceuticals patented in the
represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor of the Supreme               importing Member State but not in Spain 'would not
Court of England and Wales, and Mario Siragusa, of the                 appear' to be so significant in the long run as to bring
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             about serious difficulties on the pharmaceutical market
office of Pierre Elvinger, Elvinger & Hoss, 15 côte                    of the importing Member States . The applicants still
d'Eich .                                                               submit that the mere use of a standard and a general
                                                                       formula to reject differing and detailed economic
                                                                       evidence submitted by Member States indicates that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Commission has failed to provide sufficient reasons for
                                                                       its conclusion .
— annul the decisions of the Commission of 20 December
    1995 ,
                                                                    — Breach of essential procedural requirements
— declare that the Commission must fulfil its obligations
    under Article 176 , in particular by replacing the
                                                                       According to the applicants :
    decisions with effect from the date on which they were
    adopted despite the expiry of the transitional period laid
    down in Article 379 of Spain's Act of Accession,                   — the Commission has ignored its duty to accept a
                                                                            Member State's assessment, as indicated by the use of
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   the term 'shall' in Article 379 (2 ),
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                       — the observance of the right to be heard, in
                                                                            conjunction with the Commission's duty to carry out
The applicants, three representative undertakings in the                    a detailed and impartial examination of the
field of pharmaceutical products, challenge the Commission                  applications, requires the Commission, prior to
decisions rejecting the adoption of safeguard measures to                   rejecting them, to explain precisely why it considered
solve the problems caused by the expiry of the transitional                 the evidence submitted by the Member States to be
period provided by Article 47 of the Act of Accession of                    insufficient to establish the likely existence of serious
Spain with respect to pharmaceutical products put on the                    difficulties liable to persist. This procedural step
market in Spain, where they are unpatentable, and exported                  would have been essential to enable the Member
to other European Community Member States in which                          States to submit any further relevant evidence ,
they are protected by patents . The adoption of these
safeguard measures was demanded by France, Belgium,                    — the Commission has breached the principle of
Austria, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom and                           inalterability of acts in formulating the contested
Germany.                                                                    decisions .
The application is based on the following grounds :
— Manifest error of legal assessment
     Contrary to the contested decision, according to which
     measures taken on the basis of Article 379 of the Act of       Action brought on 3 May 1996 by Willy De Corte against
     Accession of Spain, the legal basis for general safeguard            the Commission of the European Communities
     measures, cannot last beyond the end of the transitional                                Case T-62/96)
     period, the applicants submit that the end of this period
     could never have been meant to signify complete                                         ( 96/C 197/43 )
     convergence between the economies of Spain and those
     of the existing Member States and the automatic                                (Language of the case: French)
     irrelevance of the possible need for a Member State to
     maintain measures authorized during the transitional
     period as protection against difficulties arising from this    An action against the Commission of European
     lack of convergence . Moreover, Article 379 expressly          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     provides that protective measures must be of such an           Instance of the European Communities on 3 May 1996 by


title: Case T-209/00: Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Frank Lamberts against the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament

text:
4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/27
Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Frank Lamberts                        —     failed to organise any real mediation, and did not
against the European Ombudsman and the European                                even attempt to seek an alternative solution with the
                            Parliament                                         Commission, invariably taking refuge behind the prin-
                                                                               ciple of equal treatment;
                          (Case T-209/00)
                                                                         —     accepted as sufficient the Commission’s refusal as a
                         (2000/C 316/52)                                       matter of principle to consider any amicable or alternative
                                                                               resolution; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     should have informed the applicant from the outset, and
                                                                               for as long as the option of resorting to legal proceedings
An action against the European Ombudsman and the European                      remained open to the applicant, that intervention by the
Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of                   Ombudsman would probably come to nothing, and
the European Communities on 9 August 2000 by Frank                             should therefore have advised him to bring the matter
Lamberts, residing at Linkebeek (Belgium), represented by Eric                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.                                                 Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     primarily:
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in
            solidum to pay to the applicant the sum of                   Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuijer against
            2 468 787 euros by way of compensation for                                 the Council of the European Union
            material and financial damage and the sum of
            124 000 euros by way of compensation for non-                                         (Case T-211/00)
            material damage, together with interest at the legal
            rate until payment in full;                                                           (2000/C 316/53)
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in
            solidum to pay the costs in any event;                                          (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative:
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
            solidum to pay to the applicant the sum of                   Communities on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuijer, represented
            1 234 394 euros by way of compensation for                   by Onno W. Brouwer of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in
            material and financial damage and the sum of                 Amsterdam and Brussels.
            124 000 euros by way of compensation for non-
            material damage, together with interest at the legal         The applicant claims that the Court should:
            rate until payment in full;
                                                                         —     annul the contested decision whereby the Council refuses
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in                   to grant access to the documents requested by the
            solidum to pay the costs in any event.                             applicant;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                               Instance, including costs of eventual intervening parties.
The applicant in the present case was required to attend for
the purposes of the oral test in competition COM/T/A/98; the
letter calling upon him to attend stated that ‘the arrangements          Pleas in law and main arguments
concerning the organisation of the tests are such that it is not
possible to alter the time-schedule indicated’, despite the fact         The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision adopted by
that, according to the applicant, he was suffering from the              the Council on 5 June 2000 following the judgment of the
effects of medical treatment which gave rise to abnormally               Court of First instance of 6 April 2000 in case T-188/98
aggravated physical reactions. In consequence of his exclusion           Kuijer/Council. By this judgment, the Court annulled the
from the list of suitable candidates, he lodged a complaint with         Council’s decision of 28 September 1998, as amended by its
the Ombudsman.                                                           decision of 18 May 1999, which refused to grant access to
                                                                         certain documents requested by the applicant pursuant to
The applicant complains that the Ombudsman has been                      Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
seriously negligent in the performance of his duties.                    access to Council documents. In order to comply with this
                                                                         judgment, the Council resumed the relevant procedure as from
In his view, the Ombudsman:                                              the time of the applicant’s application and re-examined the
                                                                         request, after which it refused to grant access to the requested
—     failed to fulfil his obligations to provide the applicant          documents and to examine whether partial access should be
      with advice and information;                                       granted to the information contained in these documents.


title: Case C-356/10: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/21

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-356/10) (1)

   2012/C 49/36
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-253/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/21/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Common regulatory framework — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-253/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/21/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Common regulatory framework - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 36/23)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-253/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 14 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 07.08.2004


title: Case T-325/10: Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Iliad and Others v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/43

      Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Iliad and Others v Commission
      (Case T-325/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/82)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Iliad SA (Paris, France), Free infrastructure SAS (Paris) and Free SA (Paris) (represented by: T. Cabot, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  declare the present application admissible;

                  —

                  annul European Commission Decision of 30 September 2009 approving the public financing of EUR 59 million for the planned very-high-speed broadband network in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009, (1) declaring that the compensation for a public service charge of EUR 59 million, granted by the French authorities to a consortium of undertakings for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network (THD 92 project) in the department of Hauts-de-Seine does not constitute State aid.
      In support of their action the applicants put forward three pleas in law:

                  —

                  infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission has not complied with any of the four criteria set out in the Altmark (2) case-law holding that the measure concerned did not constitute State aid;

                  —

                  infringement of the obligation to state reasons for a decision, in so far as the contested decision does not contain sufficient evidence to conclude that all the conditions for the application of the Altmark case-law have been fulfilled;

                  —

                  infringement of the obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, in so far as all the evidence obtained in the preliminary examination procedure, documents describing the size and complexity of the examination to be carried out and the partially incomplete and inadequate content of the contested decision, show that the Commission took the contested decision despite the fact that it experienced serious difficulties in assessing whether the measure concerned was compatible with the common market.

         (1)  State aid N 331/2008 — France.

         (2)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747.


               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-338/03 (1)

   (2005/C 296/36)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 14 July 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-338/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Perugia): in criminal proceedings against Rosario Alessandrello, Vicenzo Biccari, Daniel Buaron.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.