title: Case T-118/15: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Slovenia v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Time-limit for bringing an action — Starting point — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/58

         Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-118/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Time-limit for bringing an action - Starting point - Out of time - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 038/78)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous Demiri and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Italian Republic, the French Republic and Hungary.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia, the Commission, the Italian Republic, the French Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


C 161/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
      Removal from the Register of Case T-350/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-150/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/51)                                                           (2001/C 161/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 13 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-350/99,
                                                                          Register of Case T-150/00, Groupement Européen des Produc-
Bogoljub Karic and Others v Council of the European Union.
                                                                          teurs de Verre Plat (GEPV) v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-29/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-168/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/52)                                                           (2001/C 161/55)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the First                  By order of 7 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-29/00, Deutsche Post AG v Commission of the                        Case T-168/00, Düsseldorfer Senfspezialitäten v Office for
European Communities.                                                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs).
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-91/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-189/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/53)                                                           (2001/C 161/56)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          By order of 22 February 2001, the President of the Second
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-189/00, ‘Invest’ Import und Export Gmbh et Invest
Case T-91/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                          Commerce SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
Communities.
                                                                          ties.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case T-640/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Beul v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Functioning of financial markets — Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 — Legislative act — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/56

         Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Beul v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-640/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Functioning of financial markets - Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 - Legislative act - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 027/72)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carsten René Beul (Neuwied, Germany) (represented initially by K.-G Stümper, then by H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: P. Schonard and D. Warin, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by R. Weimann and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Mr Carsten René Beul shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

               4.

               The Commission and the Parliament shall bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-129/01: Action brought on 11 June 2001 by José Alejandro S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 245/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.9.2001
Action brought on 7 June 2001 by DaimlerChrysler                         Action brought on 11 June 2001 by José Alejandro S.L.
Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the                  against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                         Internal Market                                           Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-128/01)                                                         (Case T-129/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/39)
                         (2001/C 245/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                         Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             11 June 2001 by José Alejandro S.L., whose registered office is
European Communities on 7 June 2001 by DaimlerChrysler                   at Elche (Spain), represented by Ignacio Temiño Ceniceros.
Corporation, having its registered office in Michigan (USA),
represented by T. Cohen Jehoram of De Brauw Blackstone
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Westbroek, The Hague (Netherlands).
                                                                         —     uphold the present application and alter the contested
                                                                               decision of 20 March 2001 of the First Board of Appeal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    (R 230/2001-1) dismissing the appeal against the decision
                                                                               to accept the opposition submitted by Anheuser-Bush,
—     annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in so far as it                Inc. against the application to register ‘Budmen’ as a
      finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid              Community trade mark (Application No 30.221) submit-
      down in article 7(1)b and /or Article 7(3) of Regulation                 ted by José Alejandro S.L. for goods in Class 25, and
      no 40/94 (1);                                                            grant registration of Community trade mark application
                                                                               No 30221 in Class 25 as applied for;
—     order the OHMI to accord a date of registration in respect         —     in the alternative, uphold the present application and
      of the application for a Community trade mark; and                       alter the content of the contested administrative act, and
                                                                               grant registration of Community trade mark application
—     order the OHMI to compensate DaimlerChrysler for the                     No 30221 in Class 25 only in respect of footwear.
      costs of these proceedings.
                                                                         —     so far as concerns costs, order the parties to bear their
                                                                               own costs and each pay half of the common costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-         DaimlerChrysler Corporation               Applicant for the Com-        José Alejandro S.L.
munity trade mark:                                                       munity trade mark:
The Community trade            Figurative      trademark     (grille     The Community trade           Word mark ‘BUDMEN’ — Appli-
mark concerned:                design) — Application no 525048           mark concerned:               cation No 30.221 for certain
                               for goods in class 12                                                   goods in Classes 10, 16 and 25
Decision of the Exam-          Rejection of the application              Proprietor of the right to    The opponent
iner:                                                                    the trade mark or sign
                                                                         asserted by way of oppo-
Decision of the Board of       Rejection of the appeal                   sition in the opposition
Appeal:                                                                  proceedings:
                                                                         Trade mark or sign            Word mark ‘BUD’ registered in
Grounds of claim:              Incorrect      interpretation     of      asserted by way of oppo-      Denmark, United Kingdom and
                               Articles 7(1)b and 7(3) of Council        sition in the opposition      Ireland for goods in Classes 16
                               Regulation no 40/94.                      proceedings:                  and 25
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         Acceptance of the opposition
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          sition Division:              with respect to the goods in
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                                                Class 25
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/25
Grounds of claim:             No risk of confusion within the           Grounds of claim:             Incorrect      interpretation   of
                              meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of                                           article 7 (1) b) of Council Regu-
                              Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                        lation 40/94 (1).
                              of 20 December 1993 on the
                              Community trade mark, since
                              there is neither a visual nor pho-        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                              netic similarity between the trade            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                              marks nor do they desgignate
                              goods which may be confused
                                                                        Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs Ver-
                                                                        sandschlachterei KG against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
Action brought on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises
Incorp. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                        Internal Market                                                          (Case T-134/01)
                        (Case T-130/01)                                                          (2001/C 245/41)
                        (2001/C 245/40)                                                   (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          European Communities on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            Versandschlachterei KG, Duisburg (Germany), represented by
European Communities on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises               Ulrich Schrömbergs and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte.
Incorp., Florida, USA, represented by Eberhard Körner of
Lichtenstein Körner & Partners, Stuttgard, Germany.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the Commission to pay the applicant
                                                                              DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
                                                                              1 March 2000;
—     annul the contested decision of 7 March 2001 in Case
      No. R 0504/2000-3;
                                                                        —     in the alternative, order the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt-
                                                                              schaft und Ernährung to pay the applicant
—     order the Office to publish the trademark application                   DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
      concerned;                                                              1 March 2000;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Sykes Enterprises Inc.                    In connection with a programme to supply agricultural
munity trade mark:                                                      products to the Russian Federation (1), two tendering pro-
                                                                        cedures took place: one for procuring the products and the
The Community trade           Word mark: ‘Real people, real             other for their delivery to Russia. Commission Regulation
mark concerned:               solutions’       —      Application       (EC) No 1135/1999 (2) was to constitute the basis for the
                              no 1040534 for certain services           procurement of the products. Transport was dealt with by
                              in classes 35, 37 and 42                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1955/1999 (3).
Decision of the Exam-         Rejection of the Application
iner:                                                                   The applicant submitted a tender for the procurement of pork
                                                                        for subsequent delivery to Russia and obtained the contract
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the Appeal                   for the procurement of one lot. A third party obtained the
Appeal:                                                                 contract for delivery.


title: Case C-483/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/11

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-483/06)
   (2007/C 20/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC (1) by exempting from the prohibition on sponsorship events, or related activities, where these take place exclusively within the Italian State;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The effect of the Italian legislation is to introduce a derogation from the prohibition on sponsorship laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC which is not provided for by that directive.

      (1)  OJ L 152, p. 16.


title: Case C-135/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Grigorios Nikiforidis

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Grigorios Nikiforidis
   (Case C-135/15)
   (2015/C 198/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Hellenic Republic

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Grigorios Nikiforidis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Rome I Regulation (1) applicable under Article 28 of that regulation to employment relationships exclusively in the case where the legal relationship was formed by a contract of employment entered into after 16 December 2009, or does every subsequent agreement by the contracting parties to continue their employment relationship, whether with or without variation, render that regulation applicable?

               2.

               Does Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation exclude solely the direct application of overriding mandatory provisions of another country in which the obligations arising out of that contract are not to be performed, or have not been performed, or does that provision also exclude indirect regard for those mandatory provisions in the law of the Member State the law of which governs the contract?

               3.

               Is the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU relevant, for legal purposes, for the decision of national courts on whether overriding mandatory provisions of another Member State are directly or indirectly applicable?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.


title: Case T-68/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Hemmati v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/26

         Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Hemmati v Council
   (Case T-68/12)
   2012/C 109/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abdolnaser Hemmati (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul point 7 of table A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1), insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul point 7 of table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons in support of listing the applicant in the contested Regulation 1245/2011 and Decision 2011/783/CFSP;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that, even if the Court was to admit that the motivation given by the Council is sufficient, the Council committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts, since the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, that Decision 2011/783/CFSP amends, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the designation of the applicant infringes his property rights and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

      (2)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)


title: Case T-115/06: Action brought on  7 April 2006  — Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/32

         Action brought on 7 April 2006 — Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council
   (Case T-115/06)
   (2006/C 143/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening (Oslo, Norway), Norske Sjømatbedrifters Landsforening (Trondheim, Norway), Salmar Farming AS (Frøya, Norway), Hydroteck AS (Kristiansund, Norway), Hallvard Lerøy AS (Bergen, Norway), Lerøy Midnor AS (Hestvika, Norway) (represented by: B. Servais and T.S. Paulsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties for imports of salmon originating in Norway; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are Norwegian salmon producers, farmers and exporters or representing such undertakings, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (1) (‘contested regulation’) as they find that the regulation violates several articles of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (‘basic regulation’).
   The Commission services had in the course of the procedure leading to the contested regulation agreed to change the form of measures from duties to minimum import prices. This was confirmed by the contested regulation.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the sample of Norwegian producers/exporters, which is restricted to exporting producers and does not comprise non-exporting farmers and non-producing exporters, wasn't representative of the structure of the Norwegian salmon industry and was inconsistent with previous decisions on samples of the Norwegian salmon market.
   Furthermore, the applicants allege that the defendant failed to apply the lesser duty rule contained in Article 9(4) of the basic regulation. According to the applicants, the weighted average dumping margin was less than the weighted average injury margin, and the minimum import price and the fixed duty should therefore have been established on the basis of the weighted average dumping margin and not on the basis of the weighted average injury margin. As for the calculation of the non-dumped minimum import price, the applicants further allege that the use, for the conversion from NOK into EUR, of a three-year average exchange rate instead of the average exchange rate for the period of investigation artificially increased the non-dumped minimum import price.
   Moreover, the applicants claim that the minimum import price for salmon fillets wasn't based on representative data and that it was determined in breach of Articles 3(5) and 20 of the basic regulation and in violation of the principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations and the rights of defence.
   Finally, the applicants submit that the assessment of injury and the causes hereto is flawed. Firstly, in the injury analysis the defendant relied on the total of the imports as ‘dumped imports’ notwithstanding the fact that one company was found not to be dumping. Secondly, the apparent price decrease of the average sales prices in the Community industry was caused by the conversion of GBP into EUR, all sampled Community producers being based in the UK, and not by the imports. Thirdly, the defendant failed to examine properly the impact that rising costs of production in the Community may have had on the situation of the Community industry.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.


title: Case C-350/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Landessozialgericht (Germany)) — Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft (Competition — Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC — Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases — Concept of an undertaking — Abuse of dominant position — Freedom to provide services — Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — Restriction — Justification — Risk of serious harm to the financial equilibrium of the social security scheme)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Landessozialgericht (Germany)) — Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft
   (Case C-350/07) (1)

   (Competition - Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC - Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Abuse of dominant position - Freedom to provide services - Articles 49 EC and 50 EC - Restriction - Justification - Risk of serious harm to the financial equilibrium of the social security scheme)
   2009/C 102/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sächsisches Landessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kattner Stahlbau GmbH

      Defendant: Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sächsisches Landessozialgericht — Interpretation of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and of other provisions of Community law — National legislation establishing a compulsory insurance scheme against the risk of accidents at work and occupational diseases, consisting of a number of associations for the prevention of accidents at work (‘Berufsgenossenschaft’) and which provides for undertakings to be compulsorily affiliated to the association having the requisite territorial and occupational competence — Whether such associations for the prevention of accidents at work, which are able to fix the level of their subscriptions independently, without any upper limit being prescribed by national legislation, constitute an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 81 EC and 82 EC are to be interpreted to the effect that a body such as the employers' liability insurance association at issue in the main proceedings, to which undertakings in a particular branch of industry and a particular territory must be affiliated in respect of insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases, is not an undertaking within the meaning of those provisions, but fulfils an exclusively social function, where such a body operates within the framework of a scheme which applies the principle of solidarity and is subject to State supervision, which it is for the referring court to verify.

               2.

               Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings in a particular branch of industry and a particular territory must be affiliated to a body such as the employers' liability insurance association at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that that scheme does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of ensuring the financial equilibrium of a branch of social security, which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-324/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — J & F Participações v OHIM — Plusfood Wrexham (Friboi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Friboi — Earlier national word mark FRIBO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — J & F Participações v OHIM — Plusfood Wrexham (Friboi)
   (Case T-324/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Friboi - Earlier national word mark FRIBO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 103/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J & F Participações SA (Sorocaba, Brazil) (represented by: A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Plusfood Wrexham Ltd (Llay, Wrexham, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. van Roeyen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 824/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Fribo Foods Ltd and Agropecuaria Friboi, Ltda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders J & F Participações SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-277/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-277/17)
   (2017/C 239/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

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


title: Case T-146/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/41

         Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission
   (Case T-146/16)
   (2016/C 191/54)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands), Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), It Fryske Gea (Opsterland, Netherlands), Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands), Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap (Dalfsen, Netherlands), Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands), Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands), Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands), Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands), Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Heinkenszand, Netherlands), Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (‘s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands), Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers en M. de Wit, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on aid measure SA.27301 (2015/NN) — the Netherlands, reference C(2015) 5929 final;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the dispute.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity.

                           —

                           The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations).

                           —

                           The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached.

                           —

                           The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition.

                           —

                           The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case C-467/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano by order of that court of  6 October 2005  in Ministero Pubblico v Giovanni Dell'Orto

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano by order of that court of 6 October 2005 in Ministero Pubblico v Giovanni Dell'Orto
   (Case C-467/05)
   (2006/C 74/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano of 6 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ministero Pubblico and Giovanni Dell'Orto on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 2 and 9 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA apply in criminal proceedings in general to any party affected by crime, by virtue of Article 1 et seq of Council Directive 2004/80/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims or other provisions of Community law.

               2.

               Do Articles 2 and 9 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA apply in criminal proceedings for enforcement following a conviction which has become final (and thus also to a sentence pursuant to Article 444 CPP) to any party affected by crime, by virtue of Article 1 et seq of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims or other provisions of Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 261 of 6/8/2004, p. 15.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 22 March 1995 in Case T-586/93: Petros Kotzonis v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment procedure - Stating of reasons - Misuse of powers - Transfer from the Language Service to Category A - Articles 7, 25, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
22. 4. 95          l_EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /7
office is in Boulogne-sur-Mer ( France ), Klipper                   order to fill a post declared vacant by notice of vacancy
Investissements Sàrl, whose registered office is in                 No 62/91 , secondly, of the decision of the Economic and
Concarneau, v. Commission of the European Communities               Social Committee to reject the applicant's candidature for
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for, first, annulment of the        the said post and, thirdly, of the decision appointing Mr B.
Commission's letter of 2 June 1993 refusing to allocate to          as a director in the General Secretariat of the Economic and
the applicants the balance of Community assistance granted          Social Committee, the Court of First Instance ( Second
for the construction of a fishing vessel and, secondly, an          Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M.
order pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the        Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung: Registrar, has
EC Treaty that the Commission make good the harm                    given a judgment on 22 March 1 995 in which it:
allegedly suffered by the applicants, the Court of First
Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,              1 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
President, and R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas,                     applicant the sum of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March                   breach of administrative duty;
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it    2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
    seeks annulment of the decision of 2 June 1 993;
                                                                    3,    orders the Economic and Social Committee to bear its
2 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it          own costs and halfofthe applicant's costs, the other half
    seeks payment of the balance of the aid sought;                       to be borne by the applicant himself.
3 , the Commission is ordered to pay the applicants interest ,      ( J ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
    at the rate of 8% per annum of the sum of FF 875 000
    for the period from 10 January to 12 June 1992;
4 , the remainder of the application is dismissed;
5 , the applicants are to bear their own costs and jointly and
    severally one-quarter of the costs of the Commission.                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     The Commission is to bear three-quarters of its own                                   of 15 February 1995
     costs.
                                                                    in Case T-l 12/94 : Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of
0 ) OJ No C 293 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .                                                   the European Communities i 1 )
                                                                    (Officials — Action for annulment — Pre-litigation
                                                                    procedure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for
                                                                    damages — Summary of the pleas in law on which the
                                                                                application is based — Inadmissibility)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /20
                      (Second Chamber)
                      of 22 March 1995                                              (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-586/93 : Petros Kotzonis v. Economic and Social
        Committee of the European Communities (*)                   In Case T-l 12/94 : Andrew Macrae Moat, an official of the
(Officials — Recruitmentprocedure — Stating ofreasons —             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Misuse ofpowers — Transfer from the Language Service to             Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
 Category A — Articles 7, 25, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue
                           Regulations)                             des Bains, against the Commission of the European
                         ( 95/C 101/19 )                            Communities (Agent: Thomas F. Cusack ) — application for
                                                                    a judgment ( i ) condemning the Commission for its failure to
               (Language of the case: French)                       tell the applicant what post he occupies and what his duties
                                                                    are and, consequently, its failure to give him work and ( ii )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        awarding the applicant damages — the Court of First
         published in the European Court Reports)                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Biancarelli,
                                                                    President, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung,
In Case T-586/93 : Petros Kotzonis, official of the Economic        Registrar, made an order on 15 February 1995 , the
and Social Committee of the European Communities,                   operative part of which is as follows :
resident in Brussels, represented by Olivier Slusny and
Marcel Slusny, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt,
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v . Economic and Social
                                                                    2 , the parties shall bear their own costs. .
Committee of the European Communities (Agent: D.
Lagasse ) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Economic and Social Committee to follow the                  (!) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
procedure laid down in Article 29 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in


title: Action brought on 9 May 1997 by Achim Berge against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-156/97)

text:
No C 228/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Siegfried Schweikle                      Licata, residing in Brussels, Alberto Piazzi, residing at
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    Saint Genese ( Belgium ), Cornelis Pot, residing at
                          ( Case T-153/97)                               Roosendaal NC (Netherlands ), Rita Sacca-George,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, Jacques Simon, residing in Brussels,
                             ( 97/C 228/47 )                             and Harry Waterschoot, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                         by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                (Language of the case: French)                           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne
                                                                         Korn, 21 Avenue de Nassau .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by
Siegfried Schweikle, residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an              — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                    to be regraded,
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  administrative complaint,
— annul the Commission's decision of 3 September 1996                    — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 (»).
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Action brought on 9 May 1997 by Achim Berge against
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                          the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                                ( Case T-156/97 )
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                                                ( 97/C 228/49
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 6 May 1997 by Patricia Brunko                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
Metzger and others against the Commission of the                         Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 1997 by
                      European Communities                               Achim Berge, residing in Freiburg ( Federal Republic of
                                                                          Germany ), represented by Dr Miiller-Heidelberg, Rechts
                           ( Case T-154/97 )                              anwalt, Bingen ( Federal Republic of Germany), with an
                              ( 97/C 228/48 )                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                          Charles Duro, 4 Boulevard Royal .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — annul the Commission decision rejecting ( impliedly, in
 Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 1997 by                        accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second subpararaph, of
 Patricia Brunko-Metzger, residing in Brussels, Mariette                      Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom ), the applicant's
 Colinet, residing in Brussels, Christiane Degueldre,                         request of 19 December 1996 for access to documents,
 residing at Wemmel ( Belgium ), Nicole Dumont, residing at
 Ath ( Belgium ), Emile Espagnet, residing at Aalst
 ( Belgium ), Paul Fraix, residing at La Bouverie ( Belgium ),            — declare that, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
 Georgios Katalagarianakis, residing at Overijse ( Belgium ),                 the constructive refusal provided for in Article 2 (4 ),
 Danielle Lardinois, residing in Brussels, Carlos Alberto                     second subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
 Leite Mateus, residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), Liborio                      Euratom is consequently inapplicable,
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/21
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             protection — also recognized by Community law — that
                                                                     each time he should be forced to bring legal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (') OJ No L 340, 31 . 12. 1993 , p. 41 .
In the course of researching the authorization of a type of
genetically modified maize, the applicant, who is
managing editor of a juridico-political review, twice
submitted a written request to the Commission for access             Action brought on 14 May 1997 by Glenn Phillips against
to documents. Apart from a communication to the effect                       the Commission of the European Communities
that the first request (which had been addressed to the                                        ( Case T-157/97)
Commission 's office in the Federal Republic of Germany )
would be forwarded to the Commission in Brussels, which                                          ( 97/C 228/50 )
is responsible for such matters, the Commission did not
reply to the applicant's requests .                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
In the applicant's view, the Commission's inaction                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
constitutes, in accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second               Instance of the European Communities on 14 May 1997
subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom, a                 by Glenn Phillips, residing in Brussels, represented by
final rejection of the request for access to the documents           Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(a 'constructive refusal') against which an action for               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the EC                 Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Treaty by virtue of the Code of conduct concerning public
access to Council and Commission documents (Decision
93/730/EC ) ('). The constructive refusal to send the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant the documents requested contravenes the right
of access conferred by Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                      — annul the Commission's decision of 22 July 1996
Euratom, since it is settled law that the applicant has a                 rejecting the applicant's request that it give
legitimate interest in the disclosure of information and the              consideration to the possible application of
Commission did not claim that this case constituted an                    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
exception; secondly, since the legal system of the great
majority of the Member States provides for access to such
                                                                     — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
documents, the Commission has also breached the general
                                                                          decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
legal principle of public access to documents held by the
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's complaint,
public authorities.
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
The applicant also argues that the Commission has
infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty since its failure to          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reply to the applicant's requests amounts to a constructive
refusal and therefore constitutes an individual measure
which must state the reasons on which it is based, and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
hence a decision .                                                   Case T- 16/97 ( l ).
                                                                     (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant further maintains that the Commission has
breached the obligation laid down in Article 1 of Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom to give reasons . Also, in view
of the close link between procedural rights and the
exercise of discretion, the Commission is guilty of a
misuse of powers, within the meaning of Article 173 of               Action brought on 15 May 1997 by Fabienne Gutmann
the EC Treaty.                                                       Vormus against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-158/97)
The applicant essentially relies on similar arguments in
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/51 )
support of his claim that the constructive refusal provided
for in Article 2 (4 ) of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
should consequently be declared inapplicable, pursuant to                             (Language of the case: French)
Article 184 of the EC Treaty. The applicant asserts that he
has a special interest because it is to be expected that, as         An action against the Commission of the European
a journalist, he will again be confronted with the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Commission's administrative practice based on that rule,             Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1997
and it is contrary to the principle of effective legal               by Fabienne Gutmann-Vormus, residing in Brussels,


title: Case F-41/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — Honnefelder v Commission (Civil Service — General competition — Non-inclusion on a reserve list — Conduct of the oral test — Stable nature of the composition of the selection board)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — Honnefelder v Commission
   (Case F-41/08) (1)

   (Civil Service - General competition - Non-inclusion on a reserve list - Conduct of the oral test - Stable nature of the composition of the selection board)
   2011/C 30/108
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stephanie Honnefelder (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bode, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Berardis-Kayser and B. Eggers, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition AD/26/05 by reason of the inadequacy of her oral test.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The decision of the European Commission of 10 May 2007 not to include Ms Honnefelder on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/26/05 is annulled;

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008, p. 38.


title: Case T-238/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — EGBA and RGA v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/35

         Action brought on 11 April 2014 — EGBA and RGA v Commission
   (Case T-238/14)
   2014/C 212/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Brankin, Solicitor, T. De Meese, E. Wijckmans and M. Mudrony, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Order the annulment of the Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid No SA.30753 (C 34/10) (ex N 140/10) which France is planning to implement for horse racing companies (OJ L 14, 18/01/2014, p. 17); and

               —

               Order the Commission to bear the costs of the applicants in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes essential procedural requirements contained in or arising from Article 108(2), the principle of good administration and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the principle of good administration since:

                           —

                           the measure is not necessary and therefore has no proper common interest objective;

                           —

                           the measure includes costs with no common interest justification;

                           —

                           the measure is not an appropriate instrument for achieving the common interest objective;

                           —

                           the measure distorts competition and has an adverse effect on trade; and

                           —

                           the Commission failed to take the overall context into account for the assessment of the measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging alleging that the Commission, at various points in the contested measure, failed to adequately state its reasons.


title: Case C-291/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Helga Jordan-Grompe, Sven Grompe, Yves-Felix Grompe, Justin Joel Grompe v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/40

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Helga Jordan-Grompe, Sven Grompe, Yves-Felix Grompe, Justin Joel Grompe v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-291/17)
   (2017/C 239/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Helga Jordan-Grompe, Sven Grompe, Yves-Felix Grompe, Justin Joel Grompe

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

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


title: Case C-507/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Public procurement — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Directive 92/50/EEC — Award of a public contract to the Irish postal service An Post without a prior contract notice — Certain cross-border interest — Transparency)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-507/03) (1)

   (Public procurement - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Directive 92/50/EEC - Award of a public contract to the Irish postal service An Post without a prior contract notice - Certain cross-border interest - Transparency)
   (2007/C 315/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and K. Wiedner, Agents, J. Flynn QC, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, Agent, E. Regan and B. O'Moore SC and C. O'Toole, Barrister

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Molde and A. Jacobsen, Agents), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, D. Petrausch and S. Ramet, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster, C. Wissels and P. van Ginneken, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 49 EC — Procedure for award of public contracts — Decision to award a public contract without publication of a prior contract notice — Contract awarded to the Irish postal service (An Post) under which recipients of social welfare benefits could collect their payments from post offices
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-165/09 to C-167/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C-165/09) v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Groningen, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C-166/09) v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C-167/09) v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Permit for the construction and operation of a power station — Directive 2001/81/EC — National emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants — Power of the Member States during the transitional period — Direct effect)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C-165/09) v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Groningen, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C-166/09) v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others (C-167/09) v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
   (Joined Cases C-165/09 to C-167/09) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Permit for the construction and operation of a power station - Directive 2001/81/EC - National emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants - Power of the Member States during the transitional period - Direct effect)
   2011/C 211/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Mr and Mrs B. Meijer, E. Zwaag, F. Pals (C-165/09), Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne (C-166/09), Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne (C-167/09)

      Defendants: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Groningen (C-165/09), College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (C-166/09 and C-167/09)

      Third parties: RWE Eemshaven Holding BV, formerly RWE Power AG (C-165/09), Electrabel Nederland NV (C-166/09), College van Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam (C-166/09 and C-167/09), E.On Benelux NV (C-167/09)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), now Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8), and of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22) — Application for an environmental permit — Decision of the competent authority — Obligations of Member States during the period between the deadline for transposition of Directive 2001/81 and the date laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/81, which is subsequent to the deadline for transposition of that directive — Power station

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(1), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, in its original version and as codified by Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, must be interpreted as meaning that, when granting an environmental permit for the construction and operation of an industrial installation, such as those at issue in the main actions, the Member States are not obliged to include among the conditions for grant of that permit the national emission ceilings for SO2 and NOx laid down by Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, whilst they must comply with the obligation arising from Directive 2001/81 to adopt or envisage, within the framework of national programmes, appropriate and coherent policies and measures capable of reducing, as a whole, emissions of inter alia those pollutants to amounts not exceeding the ceilings laid down in Annex I to that directive by the end of 2010 at the latest.

               2.

               During the transitional period from 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010, provided for in Article 4 of Directive 2001/81:

                           —

                           Article 4(3) TEU, the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Directive 2001/81 require the Member States to refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by that directive;

                           —

                           adoption by the Member States of a specific measure relating to a single source of SO2 and NOx does not appear liable, in itself, seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by Directive 2001/81. It is for the national court to review whether that is true of each of the decisions granting an environmental permit for the construction and operation of an industrial installation such as the permits at issue in the main actions;

                           —

                           the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 6, 7(1) and (2) and 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/81 require the Member States, first, to draw up, to update and to revise as necessary programmes for the progressive reduction of national SO2 and NOx emissions, which they are obliged to make available to the public and appropriate organisations by means of clear, comprehensible and easily accessible information, and to notify to the European Commission within the time-limit prescribed, and second, to prepare and annually update national inventories of those emissions and national emission projections for 2010, which they must report to the European Commission and the European Environment Agency within the time-limit prescribed;

                           —

                           the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Directive 2001/81 itself do not require the Member States to refuse or to attach restrictions to the grant of an environmental permit for the construction and operation of an industrial installation such as the permits at issue in the main actions, or to adopt specific compensatory measures for each permit granted of that kind, even where the national emission ceilings for SO2 and NOx are exceeded or risk being exceeded.

               3.

               Article 4 of Directive 2001/81 is not unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to be able to rely upon it before the national courts before 31 December 2010.
               Article 6 of Directive 2001/81 grants rights to individuals directly concerned which can be relied upon before the national courts in order to claim that, during the transitional period from 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010, the Member States should adopt or envisage, within the framework of national programmes, appropriate and coherent policies and measures capable of reducing, as a whole, emissions of the pollutants covered so as to comply with the national ceilings laid down in Annex I to that directive by the end of 2010 at the latest, and should make the programmes drawn up for those purposes available to the public and appropriate organisations by means of clear, comprehensible and easily accessible information.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-12/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Metropolitan District Court (Ireland) made on 10 January 2011 — Danise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Metropolitan District Court (Ireland) made on 10 January 2011 — Danise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-12/11)
   2011/C 80/27
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Dublin Metropolitan District Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Denise McDonagh

      Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do circumstances such as the closures of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, which caused widespread and prolonged disruption to air travel, go beyond ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004 (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is yes, is liability for the duty to provide care excluded under Articles 5 and 9 in such circumstances?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               4.

               Is the obligation in Articles 5 and 9 to be interpreted as containing an implied limitation, such as a temporal and/or a monetary limit, to provide care in cases where cancellation is caused by ‘extraordinary circumstances’?

               5.

               If the answer to question 4 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

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


title: Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Marcello Costa (C-72/10), Ugo Cifone (C-77/10) (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibition under national legislation — Whether permissible)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Marcello Costa (C-72/10), Ugo Cifone (C-77/10)
   (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences - Award of 16 300 additional licences - Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of holders of earlier licences - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets - Whether permissible - Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence - Prohibition under national legislation - Whether permissible)
   2012/C 98/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Marcello Costa (C-72/10), Ugo Cifone (C-77/10)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Freedom of movement of persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Activity consisting in the collection of bets — National legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon police authorisation and a licence — Protection accorded to persons who obtained authorisation and licences under award procedures which unlawfully excluded other operators from the same sector — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in breach of European Union law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of European Union law, in so far as that tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure.

               3.

               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-13/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(9) — Export price — Article 3(5) and (6) — Determination of injury — Article 6(7) — Investigation — Article 8(4) — Offer of undertakings — Non-confidential version — Article 20(1) — Disclosure — Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-13/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(9) - Export price - Article 3(5) and (6) - Determination of injury - Article 6(7) - Investigation - Article 8(4) - Offer of undertakings - Non-confidential version - Article 20(1) - Disclosure - Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part)
   2014/C 45/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08 CHEMK and KF v Council, by which the General Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6) and, in the alternative, annulment of the Commission decision of 28 February 2008 refusing the then applicants’ request for suspension of the anti-dumping measures introduced by the contested regulation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-54/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA
   (Case C-54/17)
   (2017/C 239/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Respondent: Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

      Questions referred
       (1)

               1.

               Do Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national implementing provisions (namely: Articles 24 and 25 respectively of the Consumer Code) which considers that the conduct of a mobile telephone operator in failing to provide information regarding the pre-loading on to SIM cards of specific telephony services (that is, answering or internet-enabling services) may be classified as ‘undue influence’ and, therefore, as an ‘aggressive commercial practice’ likely ‘significantly’ to curtail the average consumer’s freedom of choice or of action, particularly in circumstances in which no further different material conduct is imputed to that mobile telephone operator?

               2.

               Can point 29 of Annex I of Directive 2005/29/EC (…) be interpreted as meaning that there is an ‘unsolicited supply’ where a mobile telephone operator asks its customer to pay for telephone answering or internet-enabling services, and does so in a situation with the following features:

                           —

                           at the time when the mobile phone contract was entered into, the telephone operator did not properly inform the consumer that the answering and internet-enabling services were pre-loaded on to the SIM card, with the result that those services could potentially be used by the consumer without specifically configuring them;

                           —

                           in order actually to make use of such services, the consumer must, however, perform the necessary procedures (for instance, dial the number of the answering service or activate the commands that enable internet access);

                           —

                           there is no complaint about the technical and operational processes whereby the services are actually used by the consumer, nor about the information relating to those processes and the actual cost of the services, the sole complaint against the operator being the abovementioned failure to provide the information that the services were pre-loaded on to the SIM card?

               3.

               Does the raison d’être of the ‘general’ Directive 2005/29/EC as the ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and recital 10 in the preamble and Article 3(4) of that directive as well, preclude national rules which bring within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directive 2002/22/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the authority empowered to penalise violations of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper/unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

               4.

               Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general system and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

               5.

               Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific sectoral aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices in relation to the particular features of the sector, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws (‘Normenkollision’) in a specific case?

               6.

               Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

               7.

               Do the speciality principle, established in recital 10 in the preamble and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC and Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2002/22/EC, Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2002/21/EC (4) as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/59/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I of Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even when there are sectoral rules adopted to protect consumers and based on provisions of EU law, that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper practices’?

      (1)  N.B. The progressive numbering of the questions used here differs from that used in the order for reference, in which there were two groups of questions not numbered consecutively.

      (2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (3)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

      (4)  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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).