title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 September 1996 in Case T-138/96 R: Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Competitions - Non-admission to a competition - Procedure for interim relief - Application for suspension of operation of a measure)

text:
No C 336/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9 . 11 . 96
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 34 Rue                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Philippe II v. Commission of the European Communities                                        of 18 September 1996
(Agents, during the written procedure, Bernd Langeheine
and Richard Lyal and, at the hearing, Richard Lyal, Paul              in Case T-22/96 : J. Langdon Ltd v. Commission of the
Nemitz and Berend Jan Drijber ); T-26/93 , Deutsche                                        European Communities (')
Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co ., established at Hamburg                     (Action for annulment — Contested decision revoked in the
( Germany ), represented by Michael Strobel , Rechtsanwalt,                course of proceedings — No need to give a decision)
Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                         ( 96/C 336/60 )
Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Therese v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents, during
the written procedure , Bernd Langeheine and Richard Lyal                               (Language of the case: English)
and, at the hearing, Richard Lyal , Paul Nemitz and Berend
Jan Drijber ) and Case T-28/93 Nedlloyd Lijnen BV,                    In Case T-22/96 : J. Langdon Ltd, established in Dublin,
established at Rotterdam ( Netherlands ), represented,                represented by Patrick O'Brien , Solicitor, with an address
during the written procedure , by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz &
Rotterdam Bar, and , at the hearing, by Jacques Steenbergen,          Associés, 6 Rue Heine, against Commission of the European
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Communities ( Agents : Messrs Richard Wainwright and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 4 Rue de                  Fernando Castillo de la Torre ) — application for the
l'Avenir v. Commission of the European Communities                    annulment of Commission Decision COM(95 ) 2726 of
(Agents, during the written procedure, Bernd Langeheine               3 November 1995 finding that it is justified to take action
and Richard Lyal and, at the hearing, Richard Lyal , Paul             for the post-clearance recovery of import duties and that the
Nemitz and Berend Jan Drijber ) — application for the                 remission of these duties is not justified — the Court of First
annulment        of   Commission     Decision   93 /82/EEC    of      Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner,
23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                 President, C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges ; H.
Articles 85 ( IV/32.448 and IV/32.450 : Cewal, Cowac and              Jung, Registrar, made an order on 18 September 1996 , the
Ukwal ) and 86 ( IV/32.448 and IV/32.450 : Cewal ) of the             operative part of which is as follows :
EEC Treaty ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition ),                    1 . there is no need to give a decision ;
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, P. Lindh, A. Potocki ,
R. M. Moura Ramos and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar : J.             2 . the Commission shall bear its own costs and four fifths
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on                         of the applicant's costs.
 8 October 1996 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                              (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
 1 . Cases T-24/93 , T-25/93 , T-26/93 and T-28/93 are
       joined for the purposes of the judgment;
 2 . the applications for the annulment of Commission
       Decision 93/82/EEC of 23 December 1 992 relating to a
       proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 (IV/32.448 and                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
       IV/32.450: Cewal, Cowac and Ukwal) and 86                                  OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       (IV/32.448 and IV/32.450: Cewal) of the EEC Treaty                                    of 19 September 1996
       are dismissed;
                                                                       in Case T-138/96 R : Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
 3 . the amount of the fines imposed by Article 6 of that                            Justice of the European Communities
       decision is fixed as follows:                                   (Officials — Competitions — Non-admission to a
                                                                       competition — Procedure for interim relief — Application
       — Compagnie Maritime Belge SA : ECU 8 640 000,
                                                                                for suspension of operation of a measure)
       — Dafra-Lines A/S: ECU 180 000,                                                             ( 96/C 336/61 )
       — Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH Sc Co.: ECU
           180 000,                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
       — Nedlloyd Lijnen BV: ECU 90 000;
                                                                       In Case T-138/96 R: Giovanni Ballone Burini, residing in
 4 . the applicants are ordered to pay all the defendant 's            Castelfidardo ( Italy ), represented during the written
       costs; in addition, the applicants in Case T-24/93              procedure by Giancarlo Piersimoni, of the Ancona Bar
        (Compagnie Beige SA and Compagnie Maritime Beige               ( Italy ), and during the oral procedure, by Carlo Revoldini,
        Transports SA) are ordered jointly and severally to pay        of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
       all the costs of the interveners.                               Luxembourg at the address of Marco Pantanetti , 17 Rue de
                                                                       Dudelange, Kayl , against Court of Justice of the European
 (') OJ No C 122 , 4 . 5 . 1993 and                                    Communities ( Agents : Messrs Timothy Millett and Federico
       OJ No C 124 of 6 . 5 . 1993 .                                   Falcone ) — application for suspension of operation of the
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 34 , 1993 , p . 20 .                                    decision of the Selection Board for General Competition
                                                                        CJ/A/ 1 1 rejecting the applicant's candidature — the
                                                                       President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 11 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/29
19 September 1996, the operative part of which is as                   question was necessary in order to compensate for the
follows :                                                              disadvantages caused by the division of Germany. Instead, it
                                                                       merely addressed the question whether the criteria for
1 . the application for interim relief is dismissed;                   applying Article 92 ( 3 ) were fulfilled . Since the Commission
                                                                       has a discretion in the adoption of decisions under
2.   the costs are reserved.                                           Article 92 ( 3 ), but not under Article 92 ( 2 ), it should have
                                                                       approached the matter from the opposite standpoint, and
                                                                       should initially have applied Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ). In failing to
                                                                       do so , it infringed the EC Treaty . The considerations relating
                                                                       to capacity which the Commission applied were
                                                                       misconceived in law and in fact; from a legal standpoint, the
                                                                       application of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the Treaty does not
Action brought on 26 August 1996 by Freistaat Sachsen
                                                                       depend on whether the aid gave rise to overcapacity, and
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       from a factual standpoint that was not the case .
                       ( Case T-132/96 )
                         ( 96/C 336/62 )                               The Commission did not interpret Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c );
                                                                       moreover, as is apparent from the grounds of its decision , it
               (Language of the case: German)                          took the view that the present case did not concern 'regional
                                                                       aid for new investment projects'. Since the Commission thus
                                                                       failed to provide reasons for its decision, the action must
An action against the Commission of the European                       also succeed on the ground of infringement of essential
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      procedural requirements .
Instance of the European Communities on 26 August 1996
by Freistaat Sachsen, Dresden, represented by Karl Pfeiffer
and Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalte, of Messrs Deringer                In addition , the Commission misapplied Article 92 ( 3 ).
Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund , Berlin, with an address for               Above all , the Commission erred in law in founding its
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                decision on Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ) as a whole , without
Grand-Rue .                                                            explaining which of those two completely different and
                                                                       mutually exclusive provisions it was seeking to apply . In
                                                                       fact, the only one of those provisions which could possibly
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           have been applicable was Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ), which could not
                                                                       have served to justify the Commission 's findings . In that
— annul Article 2 of the decision of the Commission of                 regard also , therefore, the Commission infringed both the
     26 June 1996 on aid granted by Germany to the                     Treaty and its obligation to provide a statement of
     Volkswagen Group for the plants in Mosel and                      reasons .
     Chemnitz ( reference No C 62/91 ex NN 75 , 77, 78 and
     79/91 ),
                                                                       The Commission wrongly based its decision in addition on
                                                                       the Community framework provisions for the motor
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              industry in order to substantiate the different treatment
                                                                       afforded to       new investments     and to investments in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    expansion . The Community framework provisions do not
                                                                       lay down different rules for the two forms of investment,
The action is directed against a decision of the Commission            and there is no basis in the applicable Community legislation
of 26 June 1996 addressed to the Government of the Federal             for the Commission 's administrative practice of making
Republic of Germany, refusing approval of significant parts            such distinctions from time to time .
of the aid in question, for which provision has been made ,
pursuant to rules of German law approved by the                        Lastly, the contested decision is also wrong because, when
Commission, with regard to factories in the Freistaat                  the German authorities approved the aid, the Community
Sachsen ( Free State of Saxony ) owned by the Volkswagen               framework provisions for the motor industry had already
Group . The Commission refused to authorize such aid ,                 expired but had not yet been renewed . The same also applies
amounting to approximately DM 240 million , on the                     to the Commission 's decision whereby the Community
ground that Article 92 ( 2 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty, which allows       framework provisions were extended to cover Germany,
aid to be granted in order to compensate for the                       despite the fact that the German Government had not given
disadvantages caused by the division of Germany, is not                its consent thereto . Since the German aid rules had been
applicable and that Article 92 ( 3 ) of the Treaty does not            approved by the Commission and the Commission had not
permit grants of aid amounting to more than the sums                   raised any objection regarding the correct application of
approved by it.                                                        those rules, there was no need for any specific notification of
                                                                       the German aid decision in March 1991 , and there was no
The applicant considers that the Commission erred in failing           justification for the initiation by the Commission of a
to apply Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty to the factual        proceeding under Article 93 ( 3 ) or for its adoption of the
situation requiring to be assessed in the present case . That          contested decision . On that ground also , the decision should
provision - has mandatory force in law and is therefore                be annulled .
applicable in every case where the factual criteria set out in
its wording are fulfilled . The Commission did not examine
whether that was the case — that is to say, whether the aid in


20150731023616742015/C 270/035542013CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506113311Case C-554/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — the Netherlands) — Z. Zh. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie v I. O. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 7(4) — Concept of ‘risk to public policy’ — Circumstances in which Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure, or may grant a period shorter than seven days)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN310120150611EN00033131Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — the Netherlands) — Z. Zh. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie v I. O.
   (Case C-554/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 7(4) — Concept of ‘risk to public policy’ — Circumstances in which Member States may refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure, or may grant a period shorter than seven days)’2015/C 270/03Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Z. Zh., Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie, I. O.

      Operative part of the judgment

            1)

            Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a third-country national, who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State, is deemed to pose a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision on the sole ground that that national is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law.

            2)

            Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted to the effect that, in the case of a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State and is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law, other factors, such as the nature and seriousness of that act, the time which has elapsed since it was committed and the fact that that national was in the process of leaving the territory of that Member State when he was detained by the national authorities, may be relevant in the assessment of whether he poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision. Any matter which relates to the reliability of the suspicion that the third-country national concerned committed the alleged criminal offence, as the case may be, is also relevant to that assessment.

            3)

            Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary, in order to make use of the option offered by that provision to refrain from granting a period for voluntary departure when the third-country national poses a risk to public policy, to conduct a fresh examination of the matters which have already been examined in order to establish the existence of that risk. Any legislation or practice of a Member State on this issue must nevertheless ensure that a case-by-case assessment is conducted of whether the refusal to grant such a period is compatible with that person’s fundamental rights.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case T-724/14: Order of the General Court of 22 July 2015 — European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Arbitration clause — Action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ — ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project — Pre-information letter — Debit note — Identification of the defendant — Partial inadmissibility)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/28

         Order of the General Court of 22 July 2015 — European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-724/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Arbitration clause - Action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ - ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project - Pre-information letter - Debit note - Identification of the defendant - Partial inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 320/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (Valencia, Spain); and Instituto de Economía Pública, SL (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents) and ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, acting as Agents)

      Re

   Primarily, application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking to have declared as unfounded EACEA’s request for recovery of grants paid to the first applicant under the agreement for the execution of the ‘Brand & Merchandising Manager for SMEs in the Children’s Product Sector’ project, or, in the alternative, application for annulment, first, of EACEA’s pre-information letter of 1 August 2014 informing the first applicant that it had to reimburse the sum of EUR 82  378,81 following the audit of the that project and, second, of debit note No 3241401420, issued by EACEA on 5 August 2014, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it relates to the European Commission.

               2)

               European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública, SL are ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 29 June 1995 in Case C-391/92: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Free movement of goods - Processed milk for infants - Prohibition of marketing other than by pharmacies)

text:
No C 229/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2 . 9 . 95
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                                               of 29 June 1995
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open               in Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the
      network provisions to leased lines, the Grand Duchy of                                European Communities 0 )
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under             (Action for annulment — Act adopted on the basis
      Article IS of that Directive;                                     of Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty — Extension —
                                                                                Admissibility)
2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                                                  ( 95/C 229/07 )
       costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 .                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto
                                                                        Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado,
                                                                        Abogado del Estado ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                        and Michel Nolin ) — application for 1 . a declaration that
                                                                        the Commission 's decision of 23 December 1992 not to
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   modify the Community framework for State aid to the
                          of 29 June 1995                               motor vehicle industry and to extend its validity until the
        in Case C-391/92 : Commission of the European                   Commission organized a review of it is non-existent or, if
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                   appropriate, the annulment of that decision, and 2 . the
 (Free movement ofgoods — Processed milk for infants —                  annulment of the extension of the said framework by
                                                                        Decision 91 /C 81 /05 ( 2 ) in so far as that decision is the basis
      Prohibition of marketing other than by pharmacies)
                                                                        for the decision of 23 December 1992 — the Court,
                             ( 95/C 229/06                              composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.
                                                                        Schockweiler ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                          of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                        G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Advocate-General; Registrar, R. Grass, has given a
           published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application;
In Case C-391 /92 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : initially R. Pellicer and V. Melgar,            2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 subsequently H. Van Lier and V. Melgar, assisted by N.
 Dontas , of the Athens Bar ) v. Hellenic Republic ( Agents :            f 1 ) OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
P. Kamarineas, P. Athanassoulis and C. Sitara ) —                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 81 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 4 .
 application for a declaration that, by requiring that
 processed milk for infants should be sold exclusively by
 pharmacies under Article 10 of Ministerial Decision
 No A2/oik . 361 of 29 January 1988 , the Hellenic Republic                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC                                  ( Fourth Chamber)
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.                                             of 29 June 1995
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers )              in Case C-437/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
 G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v. Temic
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch                          Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH ( l )
 and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General; C. O. Lenz;
 L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     (Customs inward processing relief arrangements —
 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:                                 Discharge ofthe reliefarrangements by theplacing ofgoods
                                                                          under the system of processing under customs control —
                                                                                Quantitative limits)
  1 . dismisses the application;                                                                      ( 95/C 229/08 )
 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (') OJ No C 326 , 11 . 12 . 1992 .                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-437/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance


title: Case C-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Acino AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino AG (formerly Acino Pharma GmbH) v European Commission

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/8

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Acino AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino AG (formerly Acino Pharma GmbH) v European Commission
   (Case C-269/13 P)
   2013/C 215/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Acino AG (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 for infringement of European Union law and annul Commission Decisions C(2010) 2203, C(2010) 2205, C(2010) 2210 and C(2010) 2218 of 29 March 2010 and Decisions C(2010) 6430, C(2010) 6432, C(2010) 6434 and C(2010) 6435 of 16 September 2010 concerning the medicinal products Clopidogrel Acino — Clopidogrel, Clopidogrel ratiopharm — Clopidogrel Hexal — Clopidogrel and Clopidogrel ratiopharm GmbH — Clopidogrel;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant raises five grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal the appellant alleges an infringement and wrongful application of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) in conjunction with Articles 116 and 117 of Directive (EC) No 2001/83 (2) and the precautionary principle. It claims that the General Court wrongly considered that the infringements of the principles and guidelines relating to good manufacturing practice for medicinal products (GMP) relied on in the contested decisions essentially amounted to an unrebuttable presumption of the potential existence of insufficiencies in the qualitative and quantitative composition of the medicinal products.
   The second ground of appeal relates to an erroneous legal assessment of the facts established by the General Court. The General Court failed to recognise that, in relying exclusively on the ‘lack of confidence’ resulting from the infringements of the GMP, the Commission infringed its duty of due diligence and its duty to state reasons since it failed to furnish either serious or conclusive evidence of quantitative or qualitative deficiencies in the medicinal products.
   The third ground of appeal alleges an erroneous application of the principle of proportionality. The appellant claims that it furnished evidence that any endangerment to health from the medicinal products could be ruled out, with the result, in particular, that the amendment to the product authorisation, with retroactive effect, and the product recall ordered by the Commission were neither necessary nor proportionate.
   The fourth ground of appeal alleges an erroneous review of the Commission’s margin of discretion. The appellant alleges that, as a result of the erroneous finding that the GMP rules are ‘absolute’ in nature, the General Court wrongly concluded that the Commission did not clearly exceed the limits of its powers by basing its decisions solely on the irrevocable ‘lack of confidence’.
   By its final ground of appeal the appellant alleges an infringement of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 81(1) of Regulation No 726/2004/EC. In the grounds for its decision the Commission did not address at all the evidence furnished by the appellant, with the result that the decisions are formerly incomplete and unlawful.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case T-350/05: Action brought on 16 September 2005 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/32

         Action brought on 16 September 2005 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-350/05)
   (2005/C 281/58)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Finland (represented by: Tuula Pynnä, Agent)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision, dated 8 July 2005 and notified on the same day, refusing, contrary to the principle of loyal cooperation under Article 10 EC and to the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning conditional payments, to open negotiations with Finland on the conditional payment of the retroactive customs duties and default interest on them up to the date of payment demanded by the Commission from Finland in infringement proceedings 2003/2180 under Article 226 EC, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission considered that in the present case it was not under an obligation to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC. Finland had, in its letter under Article 232 EC, called on the Commission, under the principle of loyal cooperation under Article 10 EC and the case-law of the Court of Justice on conditional payments, to take a decision to enter into negotiations with Finland on the conditional payment, pending the decision of the Court of Justice in the case, of the disputed customs debt and the associated default interest.
   Finland submits that by taking the contested decision the Commission infringed the EC Treaty or the legislation relating to its application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 230 EC by refusing, contrary to the principle of loyal cooperation under Article 10 EC and the case-law of the Court of Justice on conditional payments, to start negotiations on the conditional payment of the retroactive customs duties and default interest on them up to the date of payment demanded by the Commission from Finland under Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 (1) in infringement proceedings 2003/2180, and by not giving reasons for the refusal contrary to Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.


title: Case T-89/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NIAGARA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA)
      (Case T-89/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NIAGARA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 211/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Niagara Bottling LLC (Ontario, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Jakab, A. Schifko and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 784/2014-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the word mark NIAGARA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Niagara Bottling LLC to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case F-79/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/47

         Action brought on 2 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-79/11)
   2011/C 311/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered because of the failure to take measures to implement the judgment in Case F-128/07.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity suffered because of the failure to take implementing measures in relation to him;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect to the non-material damage suffered through the complete failure by the Commission to notify him of how the Commission intended to give effect to the judgment of annulment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 10 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-313/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331 /11
7. Does it follow from Article 222 of the EC Treaty, or                    the European Communities in Case T-63/96 between
     from the application by analogy of Article 174                        Augusto Fichtner and the Commission of the European
     thereof, that any right to pay in accordance with                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     another collective agreement ( between the same                       the European Communities on 8 September 1997 by
     parties ) which may be inferred from Article 119 of the               Augusto Fichtner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore,
     EC Treaty or from Directive 75/117/EEC exists only                    Avvocato in Pavia (Italy ).
     from the date of a finding to that effect by the Court
     of Justice ? •
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should           set aside the
                                                                           order of the Court of First Instance ( Fourth        Chamber) of
(') OJ L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                           9 July 1997 in Case T-63/96 H, notified to          the applicant
                                                                           on 11 July 1997, dismissing his application,        and refer the
                                                                           case back to the Court of First Instance .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), by a decision of 30 June
                                                                           Proceedings before the Court of First Instance were
1997, in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v.
                                Greek State                                brought in good time and in accordance with the proper
                                                                           procedure, by means of an application lodged on 10 May
                            Case C-3 11/97 )                               1996, against the decision adopted on 5 February 1996,
                                                                           which was notified to the applicant through official
                             ( 97/C 331/18 )
                                                                           channels on 20 February 1996 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     That is indisputably the measure concluding the
European Communities by a decision of 30 June 1997 of                      complaints      procedure.           The   character     of the
the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First                    communication from the Director-General of the Rights
Instance ) Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), which was received at the               and Obligations Directorate of DG IX is quite clear and it
Court Registry on 8 September 1997, for a preliminary                      cannot be regarded merely as an express reply, still less as
ruling in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v. Greek                  a confirmatory act.
State on the following question:
                                                                           In the alternative, the applicant asks the Court, in the
Is Article 109 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Greek Income Tax Code                    event that his pleas in law are rejected, to acknowledge
contained in Law 2238/1994 ( FEK ( Greek Official                          that his error was excusable. As was pointed out in the
Gazette) 151 A), which imposes a different tax charge                      grounds of the order under appeal, the Court of First
unfavourable to foreign companies by applying a 40 % tax                   Instance has consistently held that failure to comply with
rate on their taxable income, as against domestic                          the time-limits set by Article 91 ( 3 ) of the Staff
companies to which a tax rate of 35% is applied,                           Regulations does not prevent an application from being
permissible under Community law and, in particular, is it                  admissible where the applicant has committed a justifiable
in compliance with Articles 7 and 52 of the Treaty; in                     error.
other words, is the Greek State entitled to impose the said
differential tax treatment which is unfavourable to foreign
companies ?                                                                 H OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996, p . 9 . ■
Appeal brought on 8 September 1997 by Augusto                               Action brought on 10 September 1997 by the Commission
Fichtner, an official of the Commission of the European                     of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
 Communities, residing at Besozzo, Varese (Italy), against                                          ( Case C-3 13/97)
the order made on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of
 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                              ( 97/C 331 /20)
 in Case T-63/96 between Augusto Fichtner and the
           Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case C-3 12/97 P)                               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                              ( 97/C 331 / 19 )                             10 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
                                                                            Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 An appeal against the order made on 9 July 1997 by the                     Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Fourth     Chamber of the             Court of First Instance     of       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/12              r EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 11 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 against the
                                                                         judgment delivered on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate                   Communities in Case T- 156/95 between Diego Echauz
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 Brigaldi, José Luis Buendia Sierra, César Montoliu Garcia,
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/5 7/EC                María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,
     of 22 November 1994 (') on common rules and                         Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López,
     standards for ship inspection and survey organizations              Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María
     and     for    the     relevant   activities   of    maritime       Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego
     administrations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil          González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín, Julio
     its obligations under that directive and under the                  Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray and
     Treaty,                                                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-315/97 P)
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                                        ( 97/C 331/22 )
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 July 1997
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in Case T-156/95 between
                                                                         Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Cesar
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, whereby a directive is                     Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz Monroy, Carmen
binding upon each Member State to which it is addressed                  Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel
as to the result to be achieved, requires Member States to               Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia
comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in               Velazquez, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen
the directive . In respect of the directive cited in the                 Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez Marin, Eva Maria
Commission's pleadings, that time-limit expired on                       Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo
31 December 1995 without the Italian Republic having                     Fabra Utray and the Commission of the European
taken the necessary measures to comply.                                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities on 12 September 1997 by
(') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994, p. 20.                                    Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria
                                                                         Jesus Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Maria
                                                                         Carmen Labrador Rubio, and Leopoldo Fabray Utray,
                                                                         represented by Ramon Garcia-Gallardo, Abogado, with an
                                                                         address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
                                                                         B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, Brussels
                                                                         B-1050 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
1 September 1997 in the case of Verein zur Förderung des                 — declare the present appeal brought by the above
freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer                          officials to be admissible and well-founded,
                 Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the CFI of 9 July 1997 in
                          (Case C-3 14/97)                                    Case T-156/95 ('),
                            ( 97/C 331/21 )                              — order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the European Communities by an order of the                           — Manifest error of interpretation and application of the
Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna )                       Community legislation in force, specifically of opinion
of 1 September 1997, which was received at the Court                         201 /92 of the Board of Heads of Administration
Registry on 11 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling                       ( applied by way of the Commission's internal circular
in the case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs                    of 24 January 1992 ), of Article 128 ( b ) of the Protocol
im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer Spezialzeitschriften                         on Privileges and Immunities of the European
Verlag KG on the following question :                                         Communities         and     of  Article 20 of   the    Staff
                                                                              Regulations of Officials of the European Communities :
                                                                             the Court of First Instance has not taken account of
Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                             the fact that an official who legitimately wishes to
precluding application of legislation of Member State A                       maintain his official residence in Spain has no choice
prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B                      but to travel to his country of origin in order to
from selling in Member State A a periodically published                      exercise his right to vote .
magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in                  — Discrimination.
Member State B ?
                                                                         (') OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 27.


title: Case C-472/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 18(4) — National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-472/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 18(4) - National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)
   2010/C 63/21
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alstom Power Hydro

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation providing for a period of three years for the introduction of applications for the refund of excess tax.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a limitation period of three years in which to make an application for the refund of excess value added tax collected by, though not due to, the tax authority.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-354/07: Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (FOTOPROTECTOR ISDIN)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/63

         Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (FOTOPROTECTOR ISDIN)
   (Case T-354/07)
   (2007/C 269/115)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde, lawyers, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2007 in Case R 567/2006-1; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘FOTOPROTECTOR ISDIN’ for products in among others class 5 — Community trade mark No 1 075 597

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Isdin, SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision insofar as it declared the invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Violation of the applicant's right to be heard pursuant to Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and violation of Article 52 read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation.


title: Case C-151/11: Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel
   (Case C-151/11) (1)

   2011/C 340/26
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case C-119/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique (Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 24 — Prohibition of total prohibitions on commercial communications by the regulated professions — Profession of qualified accountant — Prohibition on canvassing)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique
   (Case C-119/09) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 24 - Prohibition of total prohibitions on commercial communications by the regulated professions - Profession of qualified accountant - Prohibition on canvassing)
   2011/C 152/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable

      Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) and, specifically, Article 24 thereof relating to commercial communications by the regulated professions — Commercial practice of canvassing — Proscription, in respect of the regulated professions covered by the directive, of any general prohibition, whatever the form of commercial practice concerned, or the option for the Member States to maintain general prohibitions in respect of certain commercial practices, such as canvassing

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which totally prohibits the members of a regulated profession, such as the profession of qualified accountant, from engaging in canvassing.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-272/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014  — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S
   (Case C-272/14)
   2014/C 253/27
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

      Question referred

   Must spindles with the specific characteristics as described be classified under CN heading 7318 or 8302?


title: Case C-435/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/25

         Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-435/09)
   2010/C 24/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, J.-B. Laignelot and C.A.H.M. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to transpose correctly and fully,
                Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and III,
                Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 8(a) and point 18(a), and Article 7(1)(b), and
                Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and III and Annex III as such,
               of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997,
               Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               order Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission relies on the following grounds in support of its action:

               (a)

               As regards the legislation of the Flemish Region, the Commission states that that legislation does not take account of all the relevant criteria of Annex III to the Directive when determining whether or not it is necessary to make the projects listed in Annex II to the Directive subject to an environmental impact assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive. The Flemish Government has failed to show that the alternative procedures to which it refers for the projects in question satisfy the requirements of Articles 2 and 5 to 10 of the Directive.

               (b)

               As regards the legislation of the Walloon Region, the Commission first states that in respect of the projects listed in point 18(a) of Annex I (industrial plants for the production of pulp from timber or similar fibrous materials), that legislation sets a threshold, whereas the Directive does not provide for this, and in respect of the projects listed in point 8(a) of Annex I (ports for inland-waterway traffic) sets a threshold which is expressed in terms of the number of ships and not in tonnes, as the Directive does. Second, the Commission states that Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive has not been correctly transposed in the legislation of the Walloon Region.

               (c)

               As regards the legislation of the Brussels-Capital Region, the Commission states first that it takes no account of the relevant selection criteria of Annex III to the Directive in its transposition of Article 4(3) of the Directive and that the alternative forms of assessment referred to by the Brussels Government do not satisfy all the characteristics listed in the Directive. The Commission states second that in that legislation Annex III to the Directive is not transposed as such.

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.


title: Appeal brought on 23 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 17 September 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-50/96 between Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-417/98 P) (1999/C 1/22)

text:
4.1.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  established in a Member State rely on the specific rules on
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                       jurisdiction set out in that Convention against a plaintiff
Chancery Division, by order of that court of 2 October                   domiciled in Canada?
1998, in the case of 1. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1. Inland Revenue                          Do the rules on jurisdiction specific to matters relating to
         Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney General                        insurance set out in Article 7 et seq. of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention apply to matters relating to reinsurance?
                         (Case C-410/98)
                           (1999/C 1/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Appeal brought on 23 November 1998 by the
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                       Commission of the European Communities against the
Chancery Division, of 2 October 1998, which was                          judgment delivered on 17 September 1998 by the First
received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Hoechst                           Communities in Case T-50/96 between Primex Produkte
Aktiengesellschaft and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1.                      Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and
Inland Revenue Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney                          Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, supported by the United
General, on questions which are identical to those in Case               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the
C-397/98 (1), Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others against                           Commission of the European Communities
Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney
                                                                                (Case C-417/98 P)
General.
                                                                                (1999/C 1/22)
(1) Published in this Official Journal at page 7.
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 September
                                                                         1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Case T-50/96 between
                                                                         Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr.
                                                                         Kruse GmbH and Interporc Im- und Export GmbH,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel                   supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
de Versailles (12th Chamber) by judgment of that court                   Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European
of 5 November 1998 in the case of SocieÂteÂ Group                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Josi Reinsurance Company SA against Compagnie                            the European Communities on 23 November 1998 by the
d'Assurances Universal General Insurance Company                         Commission of the European Communities, represented
                               UGIC'                                    by Jean-Louis Dewost, Director-General of the
                                                                         Commission's Legal Service, and Götz zur Hausen, Legal
                         (Case C-412/98)
                                                                         Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                           (1999/C 1/21)                                 Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                         its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
(Court of Appeal), Versailles (12th Chamber) of                          Ð Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
5 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                            of 17 September 1998 in Case T-50/96.
19 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
SocieÂteÂ Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA against                      Ð Dismiss the action in that case.
Compagnie d'Assurances Universal General Insurance
Company UGIC' on the following questions:                               Ð Order the respondents to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Does the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
commercial matters apply not only to intra-Community'                   Case C-163/98 P (1).
disputes but also to disputes which are integrated into the
Community'? More particularly, can a defendant                           (1) OJ C 258, 15.8.1998, p. 14.


title: Case C-608/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 against the Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 Land Wien v European Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/43

      Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 against the Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 Land Wien v European Commission
      (Case C-608/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/80)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Land Wien (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  revise the order of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 so as to take full account of the substance of its claim;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appeal has been brought against the order to the General Court of 20 September 2011, by which that court dismissed the appellant's action seeking, essentially, the annulment of the Commission's decision of 25 March 2010 to discontinue the procedure relating to the appellant's complaint concerning a plan to expand units 3 an 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in the Slovak Republic, and a declaration that the Commission has failed to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since it failed to communicate all of the documents requested in that regard in infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1)

      The General Court infringed the Euratom Treaty in failing to interpret it in the light of the TFEU. The General Court failed to recognise that the TFEU declares as a legally enforceable right the right of access to documents laid down in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which the appellant may rely directly to obtain from the Commission all the information which it retained in relation to the expansion of the nuclear power station in Mochovce.
      Contrary to what the General Court found, the Commission's letter in response to the question put by the appellant constitutes a challengeable decision for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. This results from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice and in particular from its judgment of 11 November 1981 in Case 60/81 (IBM).

         (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-358/14: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Fundació Catalunya-La Pedrera, fundació especial (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/26

         Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Fundació Catalunya-La Pedrera, fundació especial (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)
   (Case T-358/14) (1)

   (2015/C 228/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-519/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/41

         Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission
   (Case T-519/11 P)
   2011/C 347/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Sandro Gozi (Rome, Italy) (represented by G. Passalacqua and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the measure taken by the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security — HR.D.2/MB/db Ares (2010) — Y96 985 of 6 August 2010.

               —

               Recognise and declare the right of Mr Gozi to reimbursement of legal costs and, consequently, order the payment of the sum of EUR 24 480 plus costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the decision by which the defendant refused reimbursement of the sum of EUR 24 480 for the legal costs incurred by the appellant in legal proceedings in Italy.
   In support of his appeal, Mr Gozi relies on a sole ground of appeal alleging that the judgment under appeal in the present case seems to be wrong in law and marred in several places by reasoning which is clearly contradictory, since that judgment disregards the rationale and wording of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Union, thereby running counter to the case-law referred to in the judgment itself and to the findings of fact in the proceedings before the Commission.


title: Case F-16/10: Action brought on 10 March 2010 — M. Almeida Campos and Others v Council

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/55

         Action brought on 10 March 2010 — M. Almeida Campos and Others v Council
   (Case F-16/10)
   2010/C 134/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: M. Almeida Campos and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 in the 2009 promotion procedure and, in so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote to that grade in the same promotion procedure the officials whose names appear in the lists of persons promoted published in CP no 97/09 of 27 April 2009 and CP no 93/09 of 13 May 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 in the 2009 promotion procedure;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decisions to promote to grade AD 12 in the 2009 promotion procedure the officials whose names appear in the lists of persons promoted published in CP no 97/09 of 27 April 2009 and CP no 93/09 of 13 May 2009;

               —

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


title: Case C-364/12: Order of the President of the Court of 5 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Miguel Fradera Torredemer, Maria Teresa Torredemer Marcet, Enrique Fradera Ohlsen, Alicia Fradera Torredemer v Corporación Uniland S.A.

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Miguel Fradera Torredemer, Maria Teresa Torredemer Marcet, Enrique Fradera Ohlsen, Alicia Fradera Torredemer v Corporación Uniland S.A.
   (Case C-364/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/51
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case C-546/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Jørn Hansson (Appeal — Community plant variety rights — Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Articles 20 and 76 — Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 — Article 51 — Application to initiate nullity proceedings in respect of Community plant variety rights — Principle of examination by the CPVO of its own motion — Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Substantial evidence)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Jørn Hansson
   (Case C-546/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Articles 20 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 - Article 51 - Application to initiate nullity proceedings in respect of Community plant variety rights - Principle of examination by the CPVO of its own motion - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Substantial evidence))
   (2015/C 236/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, acting as Agent, and A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt), Jørn Hansson (represented by: G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Case T-267/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Tarmac Trading v Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/25

         Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Tarmac Trading v Commission
   (Case T-267/16)
   (2016/C 287/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tarmac Trading Ltd. (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Anderson and P. Halford, Solicitors and K. Beal, QC)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/288 of 27 March 2015 in Case SA.34775 (13/C) (ex 12/NN) — Aggregates levy — and, in particular, recitals (625), (626), (629) and (630) and Articles 5 and 7 of that Contested decision — insofar as:

                           —

                           the contested decision defines the sole beneficiaries of the unlawful aid as the companies which produced shale and products consisting mainly of shale between 1 April 2002 and the date of the decision (‘shale producers’); and

                           —

                           the contested decision specifies the amount of aid to be recovered from the shale producers alone, requires recovery from them of the full amount of the aggregates levy (‘AGL’) to which the unlawful exemptions applied and fails to require the UK Government to reduce the amount to be recovered to the extent that the shale producers passed on the benefit of those exemptions to their customers; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and/or a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the beneficiaries and the quantification of amount of aid failing to be recovered.
               According to the Applicant, insofar as the contested decision identifies the shale producers as the sole beneficiaries of the unlawful aid and does not require the United Kingdom to reduce the amount to be recovered from them to the extent that they passed on the benefit of the shale exemption to their customers, the Commission has made an error of law and/or committed a manifest error of assessment.

                           —

                           The Applicant puts forward that the case-law of the General Court in Case T-308/00 RENV, Salzgitter/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2013:30), that has established that recovery must be limited to the financial advantages actually arising from the placing of the aid at the disposal of the beneficiary, and be proportionate to them. Moreover, so the Applicant states, Cases T-473/12, Aer Lingus/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:78) and T-500/12, Ryanair/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:73), establish that, in the case of an aid consisting of a reduction of an indirect tax levied on the consumption of a particular good or service and intended to be passed on by an undertaking to its customers, and where the economic advantage arising from the application of the reduced tax could also have been passed on to its customers, the amount of aid falling to be recovered from the undertaking is only the advantage actually obtained and retained by the undertaking.

                           —

                           The Applicant further puts forward that the AGL is an indirect tax levied on the consumption of aggregates and intended (by the UK Government) to be passed on by the undertakings extracting and commercially exploiting the aggregates, to their customers. The economic advantage arising from the shale exemptions, so the Applicant claims, could have been –and indeed actually was- passed on by the shale producers (including the Applicant) in the form of lower prices for the sale.

                           —

                           The Applicant further puts forward that for the same reason, recovery of the full amount of unpaid aggregates levy could not ensure the re-establishment of the status quo ante and would be liable to create additional distortions of competition, since it could lead to the recovery of more from the shale producers (including the Applicant) that the advantage they actually enjoyed.

                           —

                           Accordingly, so the Applicant states, following Cases T-473/12, Aer Lingus/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:78) and T-500/12, Ryanair/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:73), the only aid falling to be recovered from the shale producers is the advantage actually obtained and retained by them.

                           —

                           Finally, the Applicant puts forward that insofar as the contested decision requires the recovery from the shale producers of the full amount of the AGL from which they were exempted under the shale exemptions, without any reduction to take account of the benefit passed on by the shale producers to their customers, the Commission made an error of law, wrongly applied Article 108 TFUE and/or Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1) and/or made a manifest error of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the EU principle of proportionality.
               The Applicant puts forward that in breach of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999, recovering the full amount of unpaid aggregates levy from the Applicant in relation to the shale it exploited would be disproportionate to any financial advantage arising from the placing of the aid at its disposal. The Applicant passed on the entire benefit of the exemption from AGL to its customers and it would be impossible in practice for it to recover retroactively that unpaid AGL from its customers.


title: Case C-353/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Bari (Italy) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone v Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH and Others

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Bari (Italy) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone v Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH and Others
   (Case C-353/15)
   (2015/C 302/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte di Appello di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone

      Defendants: Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH, Curatela del Fallimento Leonmobili Srl, ICO Srl, Arturo Salice SpA, Grafiche Ricciarelli di Ricciarelli Bernardino, Deutsche Bank SpA, Fida Srl, Elica SpA

      Questions referred

               a)

               In the absence of any establishment in another Member State may the presumption provided for by the last part of Article 3(1) and Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) be rebutted in a challenge to jurisdiction by evidence that the centre of main interests of a company is in a different State from the one where the company has its registered office.

               b)

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, may that evidence be derived from another presumption, that is to say, from the assessment of information from which it can be logically deduced that the centre of main interests is in another Member State.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).


title: Case C-89/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa
   (Case C-89/16)
   (2016/C 175/06)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Radosław Szoja

      Respondent: Sociálna poisťovňa

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 13(3)of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social services enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, be interpreted without taking into account the clarifications in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and without any possibility of consequently applying the procedure mentioned in Article 16 of the abovementioned regulation, in such a way that the shortness of the working time or the low level of remuneration of employees has no effect on the choice of the national law applicable when a person is both employed and self-employed, in other words: the abovementioned Article 14 of the implementing Regulation does not apply to the interpretation of Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation?

               2.

               If a negative answer is given to the first question, is it the case, if there is a conflict when two regulations are applied, that is to say: conflict between the basic regulation and the implementing regulation, which in the present case are Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, that the national court may assess the provisions thereof on the basis of their legislative force, or on the basis of their rank in the hierarchy of Union law?

               3.

               May the interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Regulation adopted by the Administrative Commission under Article 72 of the Basic Regulation be considered a binding interpretation made by an EU institution, from which the national court may not depart, which at the same time precludes a reference for a preliminary ruling, or is that interpretation merely one of the permissible interpretations of EU law that the national court must take into account as one of the factors underlying its decision?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.


title: Case C-436/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Attila Belkiran v Lord Mayor of Krefeld — Other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Attila Belkiran v Lord Mayor of Krefeld — Other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   (Case C-436/09)
   2010/C 24/47
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Attila Belkiran

      Defendant: Lord Mayor of Krefeld

      Other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Question referred

   Is the protection against expulsion provided for in Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 (of the EEC-Turkey Association Council) and enjoyed by a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 and who has resided for the previous ten years in the Member State in respect of which this legal status applies, to be determined in accordance with Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1), with the result that expulsion is permitted only on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)