title: Case F-112/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — HL v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service — Omission of the applicant’s name — Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion — Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion — Opinions adopted by a joint body — Obligation to state grounds)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/34

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — HL v Commission
      (Case F-112/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the applicant’s name - Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion - Opinions adopted by a joint body - Obligation to state grounds))
      (2016/C 364/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: HL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Berscheid and A.-A. Gilly, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Declares that HL shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 55.


title: Removal from the register of C-342/95

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-464/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)]: Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Friedrich Stefan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich (National rules prohibiting the registration of mortgages in foreign currencies — Breach of that prohibition before Community law entered into force in Austria — Interpretation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Whether Community law can operate to remedy the registration)

text:
C 161/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              2.6.2001
e Penale di Cagliari (Civil and Criminal District Court, Cagliari),        B. Uriarte Valiente, Avocats — application for an appeal
Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
before that court between Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl and                    Communities (First Chamber) of 14 October 1998 in Case
Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoria-                   T-224/97 Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v Commission [1998]
le No 24 della Sardegna, Ente Regionale per l’Assistenza                   ECR-SC I-A-581 and II-1741, seeking to have that order set
Tecnica in Agricoltura (ERSAT) — on the interpretation of                  aside: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of                      J. Guerra Fernandez and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court
12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as
structures (OJ 1985 L 93, p. 1) and of Article 5(5) of Council             President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving                   Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ 1991 L 218, p. 1)            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2001,
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      in which it:
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and F. Macken (Rappor-
teur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal           1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        European Communities of 14 October 1998 in Case
11 January 2001, in which it has ruled:                                          T-224/97 Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v Commission;
                                                                           2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European
The last subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC)                Communities of 24 October 1996 rejecting Mrs Martı́nez del
No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of                        Peral Cagigal’s request for a review of her classification in grade,
agricultural structures and the last subparagraph of Article 5(5) of             upheld by the decision of the Commission of 29 April 1997
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on                           rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 January 1997;
improving the efficiency of agricultural structures may not be relied
on before a national court by limited companies seeking to obtain the      3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
status of farmers practising farming as their main occupation where              all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
the legislature of a Member State has not adopted the provisions                 and the Court of Justice.
necessary for their implementation in the national legal system.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999.
( 1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-464/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         of 11 January 2001                                the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)]:
                                                                           Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Friedrich Ste-
in Case C-459/98 P: Isabel Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v                          fan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich (1)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (National rules prohibiting the registration of mortgages in
                                                                           foreign currencies — Breach of that prohibition before
(Appeal — Officials — Application for review of classifi-                  Community law entered into force in Austria — Interpret-
cation in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New                     ation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
                material fact — Equal treatment)                           — Whether Community law can operate to remedy the
                                                                                registration)
                           (2001/C 161/03)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/04)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-459/98 P: Isabel Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal, an                 In Case C-464/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht für
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by A. Creus and                Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), Austria,
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 161/3
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              e Penale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), Italy for a
court between Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Friedrich Stefan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich — on              court between Kofisa Italia Srl and Ministero delle Finanze,
the interpretation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now                      Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia
Article 56 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                         di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA — on the
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet                     interpretation of Articles 243 and 244 of Council Regulation
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;                  (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,               Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2001,                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
in which it has ruled:                                                       Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
1.    Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) is to be              General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      construed as precluding the application of national rules such         has given a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it has
      as those at issue in the main proceedings, requiring a mortgage        ruled:
      securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member
      State to be registered in the national currency.                       1.    Article 243 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
                                                                                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
2.    Article 73b of the Treaty is to be construed as meaning that it              is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for national law to
      did not apply in Austria prior to the date of accession of the               determine whether a trader must initially lodge an appeal before
      Republic of Austria to the European Union.                                   the customs authority or whether he may appeal directly to the
                                                                                judicial authority.
3.    Article 73b of the Treaty is to be construed as incapable of
      remedying, with effect from the entry into force of the EC Treaty      2.    Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as
      in Austria, a mortgage registration which, under the relevant                meaning that it confers the power to suspend implementation
      national law, is vitiated from the outset by absolute and                    of a contested decision exclusively on the customs authorities.
      incurable nullity such as to render that registration non-existent.          However, that provision does not limit the power of the judicial
                                                                                authorities seised of a dispute pursuant to Article 243 of that
                                                                                regulation to order such suspension in order to comply with
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.                                                            their obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of Community
                                                                                law.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 January 2001
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-1/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Kofisa                                              of 11 January 2001
Italia Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della Riscos-
sione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di Genova —                        in Case C-226/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
             San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (1)                            the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Siples Srl,
                                                                             in liquidation v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the                    Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di
Court — National legislation adopting Community pro-                               Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (1)
visions — Community Customs Code — Appeal — Manda-
tory nature of the two stages of the appeal — Suspension of                  (Common Customs Code — Appeals — Suspension of
   implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)                     implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)
                           (2001/C 161/05)                                                              (2001/C 161/06)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-1/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  In Case C-226/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile


title: Case C-84/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and Article 10 EC — Structural funds — Coordination between activities of the Structural Funds and operations of the EIB — Systematic reduction of amounts paid by way of aid from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF — Charges levied by IFADAP during the programming period 1994-99)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-84/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and Article 10 EC - Structural funds - Coordination between activities of the Structural Funds and operations of the EIB - Systematic reduction of amounts paid by way of aid from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF - Charges levied by IFADAP during the programming period 1994-99)
   (2006/C 294/06)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alves Vieira and G. Braun, acting as Agents, and by N. Castro Marques and F. Costa Leite, advogados)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, acting as Agent, and by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, advogados)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 10 EC and Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1) — Systematic reduction of amounts paid by way of aid from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF — Compulsory charges levied by IFADAP during the programming period 1994-99
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by permitting the Instituto de Financiamento e Apoio ao Desenvolvimento da Agricultura e Pescas (Financing and Supporting Institute for the Development of Agriculture and Fisheries) to introduce, and by allowing to remain in force, a procedure for granting financial assistance from the Community Structural Funds that includes essential requirements involving the payment of charges which are neither voluntary nor optional and which do not constitute remuneration for services rendered, but rather serve to finance tasks for which the Portuguese State is responsible, particularly under Community law, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-483/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC — The Community's railways — Development — Licensing of railway undertakings — Allocation of infrastructure capacity, levying of charges for the use of infrastructure and safety certification — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-483/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC - The Community's railways - Development - Licensing of railway undertakings - Allocation of infrastructure capacity, levying of charges for the use of infrastructure and safety certification - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2004/C 300/48)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-483/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: M. Demetriou and K. Manji) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case T-741/16: Action brought on 21 October 2016 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/38

         Action brought on 21 October 2016 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission
   (Case T-741/16)
   (2016/C 462/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by refusing to grant economy market treatment to the applicant, the European Commission violated Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and the principle of legitimate expectations, and imposed an unreasonable burden of proof in violation of the principle of good administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by relying on the Union producer’s prices and costs to determine the normal value, the European Commission infringed Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Articles 2(10), 3(2)(a), 3(3) and 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 and the principle of good administration, in its rejection of the adjustments.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by means of its finding that the dumped imports caused material injury to the Union industry, the European Commission violated Article 3(2) and 3(6) (and, in subsidiary order, Article 6(7)) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by relying on unreliable data, the European Commission violated Articles 2(7)(a), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, p. 21).


title: Case C-52/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Notaries — Directive 2005/36/EC)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-52/08) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Notaries - Directive 2005/36/EC)
   2011/C 204/05
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: represented by H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent, and by K. Smith, Barrister)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F.S. Gaspar Rosa, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed, with regard to the profession of notary, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), which repealed Directive 89/49/EEC (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-462/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italia) lodged on 8 October 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Lorenzo Carlucci

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italia) lodged on 8 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Lorenzo Carlucci
   (Case C-462/14)
   (2014/C 448/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Lorenzo Carlucci

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case F-100/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2010 — Petrilli v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Concept of residence — Principal residence — Documents in support)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2010 — Petrilli v Commission
   (Case F-100/08) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Concept of residence - Principal residence - Documents in support)
   2010/C 209/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Petrilli (Grottammare, Italy) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez and J. Lodomez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision concerning the fixing of the applicant’s main place of residence.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Petrilli to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009, p. 52.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Hitachi Ltd, Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co., Sanyo Electric Co., Sharp Corporation and Toshiba Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-192/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 351 / 13
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          She further pleads breach of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                      welfare of officials and of the principles of good
— annul the decision of 14 December 1994 adopted by the               management and sound administration, by reason of what
    Commission , as the appointing authority, refusing to             she considers to have been the uncooperative attitude and
    accede to the applicant's request of 8 October 1986 for           negative, obstructive approach shown by the appointing
    recognition of an occupational disease, and, in so far as         authority throughout its handling of the matter .
    may be necessary, the implicit decision rejecting the
    applicant's complaint,                                            She also considers that the defendant provided an erroneous
                                                                      statement of reasons , inasmuch as the contested decision is
— award the applicant default interest at the annual rate of          based on contradictory arguments .
     8 % on the sum due to her pursuant to Article 73 of the
    Staff Regulations,                                                Lastly, the applicant observes that, for numerous reasons
                                                                      relating to the ill will shown by the Commission in this
— award the applicant ECU 1 , calculated on a provisional             matter, it is guilty of a misuse of powers , since it deviated
     basis, by way of compensation for the non-material               from its task and from its duty to promote the common
    damage suffered by her,                                           interest .
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant , the widow of a Community official who
worked for 26 years in the nuclear field, states that her
husband died in 1986 as a result of an infection caused by            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Hitachi Ltd,
the hepatitis B virus which developed into chronic active             Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
hepatitis . She maintains that the infection from which her           Corporation , NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.,
husband suffered only rarely develops into a chronic                  Sanyo Electric Co., Sharp Corporation and Toshiba
complaint resulting in death and observes that, according to          Corporation against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
the medical advice taken at the time , her husband 's lack of
immunity against the hepatitis B virus could have originated                                  ( Case T- 192/95 )
from external factors, of which the only one meriting serious                                   ( 95 /C 351 /27 )
consideration was his exposure to radiation in the course of
his career with the nuclear energy services of the
Community . The applicant consequently submitted a                                    (Language of the case: English)
request on 8 October 1986 for the recognition of her
husband 's illness as an occupational disease . Following a
lengthy and complex procedure, and on the basis of two                An action against the Commission of the European
reports by the medical committee provided for in Article 23           Communities was brought before the Court of First
of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European            Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Communities against the risk of accident and of                       by Hitachi Ltd, Matsushita Electronics Corporation,
occupational disease ('the Rules '), the appointing authority         Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki
rejected the applicant's request by decision of 14 December           Electric Industry Co ., Sanyo F^lectric Co ., Sharp
 1994 .                                                               Corporation and Toshiba Corporation , represented by Ivo
                                                                      Van Bael , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant considers that the appointing authority acted           Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
unlawfully in a number of respects in its handling of her
request for recognition of an occupational disease .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
She maintains, first of all, that the contested decision
disregards Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials and       — annul the Commission decision to initiate an interim
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Rules . She considers that it has been             review contained in notice 95/C 181 /04 of 15 July 1995
established , first, that her husband was exposed to ionizing             in so far as it concerns the undertakings accepted by
radiation and that the development of viral hepatitis into a              Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 165/90 in respect of
chronic condition may be caused by exposure to that type of               imports of certain types of electronic microcircuits
radiation and , second , that the illness from which her                  known as DRAMs originating in Japan,
husband died is included in the European list of
 occupational diseases ; since the criteria of Article 3(1 ) of the   — declare that the applicants are no longer subject to any
 Rules were fulfilled, the defendant should have applied                  anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs
 Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials .                       originating in Japan and are therefore not to be regarded
                                                                           as interested parties for the purpose of the interim review
 The applicant also contends that the procedure leading to                 of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports
 the adoption of the contested decision was irregular in                   into the EU of DRAMs originating in Japan initiated by
 several respects .                                                       Notice 95/C 181 /04 , and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred within               Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Sveriges Betodlares
    the framework of the present application, including               Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henriksson against the
    those incurred by the applicants .                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-197/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /28 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, seven public companies established under              An action against the Commission of the European
the laws of Japan, manufacturers of, inter alia, certain types        Communities was brought before the Court of First
of electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs, challenge the             Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
decision of the Commission to initiate an interim review of           by Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs                 Henriksson, represented by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht, Dr
originating in Japan, in so far as it concerns the applicants '       Michael Schiitte and Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff with an
undertakings accepted by Commission Regulation ( EEC )                address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr
No 165/90 , imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on               Axel Bonn, Avenue Guillaume 62 .
imports of this kind of products .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
By Regulation ( EEC ) No 2112/90, the Council imposed a               — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 in so far as that
definitive anti-dumping duty of 60 % on imports of DRAMs                  Regulation refuses to fix, for the 1994/95 marketing
originating in Japan . However, DRAMs produced and                        year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable
exported to the Community by companies which offered the                  to the minimum sugar-beet prices also with regard to
aforementioned undertakings were exempted from this                       Sweden, for the period from 1 January to 30 June
definitive duty . The contested decision has been taken                   1 995 ,
following a request for a review, under Articles 14 and 15 of
                                                                      — order the Commission to bear the costs of these
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , by the European
Electronic Component Manufacturers' Association.                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants submit that the decision to initiate the
disputed review constitutes an act capable of review under            The applicants request the annulment of Commission
Article 173 of the EEC Treaty . As provided for in                    Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 , concerning the fixing of the
Article 15 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , the decision      specific agricultural conversion rate relating to the sugar
to initiate an expiry review has the effect of maintaining in         market for the sugar marketing year 1994/95 in so far as it
force the anti-dumping measure concerned which would                  explicitly denies the determination of a specific agricultural
otherwise have expired after five years . The legal effect of         conversion rate for Swedish kronor, which would be
the decision to initiate the disputed review is, therefore, the       applicable to Sweden for the part of the sugar marketing
continued application of an anti-dumping measure on the               year 1994/95 from the date of accession to 30 Tune
                                                                      1995 .
applicants .
                                                                      The applicants state that the failure by the Commission to
                                                                      determine such a specific agricultural conversion rate has
The applicants further submit that the contested decision is          not been unintentional . Rather, the Regulation clearly
manifestly unlawful in so far as it concerns anti-dumping             reasons that the Commission ( incorrectly ) considers that no
measures which are clearly incapable of being the subject of          specific agricultural conversion rate need be determined
a valid interim review proceeding because they expired prior          with regard to the three new Member States, i.e. Finland,
to the initiation of the interim review concerned . As a              Sweden and Austria .
question of law, Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EC )
No 3283/94 provides for a maximum five-year period of                 The applicants maintain that the failure to determine a
validity for all anti-dumping measures unless it is                   specific agricultural conversion rate for Swedish kronor is
determined in an expiry review initiated prior to the expiry          based upon a misconception of the limited scope of the
of the five-year period and that the expiry would be likely to        transitional measures applicable to the sugar market in
lead to a continuation of dumping and injury . Accordingly,           Sweden during the 1994/95 sugar marketing year, infringes
the decision to initiate the disputed review infringes an             Article 1 ( 3 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1713/93
essential procedural requirement in so far as it concerns             and directly affects their rights in that it deprives them,
measures which had already expired .                                  without any legal basis, of their well-founded rights and
                                                                      expectations to participate in one of the fundamental
                                                                      elements of the sugar market regulation: the price
                                                                      Regulation.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have not been organically produced)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs - National legislation authorising the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have not been organically produced)
   (2005/C 217/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid, B. Doherty, F. Jimeno Fernandez and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and E. Braquehais Conesa) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 March 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Case C-322/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 30 May 2017 — Eugen Bogatu v Minister for Social Protection

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 30 May 2017 — Eugen Bogatu v Minister for Social Protection
   (Case C-322/17)
   (2017/C 277/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eugen Bogatu

      Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU Regulation No. 883/2004 (1), and in particular Article 67 thereof, when read in conjunction with article 11(2) thereof require that, in order to be eligible for ‘family benefit’ as defined in article 1(z) of the Regulation, a person must either be employed or self-employed in the competent Member State (as defined in article l(s) of the Regulation or alternatively be in receipt of the cash benefits referred to in Article 11(2) of the Regulation?

               2.

               Is the reference to ‘cash benefits’ in article 11(2) of the regulation to be interpreted as referring only to a period during which a claimant is in actual receipt of cash benefits, or does it mean any period during which a claimant is covered for a cash a benefit in the future, whether or not that benefit has been claimed at the time of application for family benefit?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1).


title: Case T-240/00: Action brought on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.10.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority terminated          —     annul the decisions taken by the appointing authority by
the secondment of the applicant to the political Group for a                  way of compliance with the judgment of the Court of
Europe of Democracies and Diversities and reinstated him in a                 First Instance of 14 April 1999 in Case T-50/98 pursuant
post in the Directorate-General for Information and Public                    to Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233 EC);
Relations.
                                                                        —     annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision adopted
                                                                              by the Commission on 25 May 2000 in response to the
The applicant contests the legality of that decision, seeks its               applicant’s complaint No R/21/2000 of 18 January 2000,
annulment and claims compensation for the damage resulting                    by which it expressly rejected that complaint;
from it. He maintains that it infringes the rights of the defence
and the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. In                —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
addition, he pleads a breach of the principle of the protection               in the sum of BEF 3 000 000 or such other higher sum
of legitimate expectations and of the duty to have regard for                 as the Court may consider fair and reasonable;
the welfare and interests of officials. Lastly, he claims that the
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        By decision of 28 July 1999, the Commission informed the
                                                                        applicant that the Promotion Committee had carried out a
Action brought on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo Ras-                     comparison of his merits with those of all the officials
mussen against the Commission of the European Com-                      proposed and those of all the officials regarded as most
                            munities                                    deserving of promotion to grade A 4 in 1997, and that,
                                                                        following that comparative examination, it had decided not to
                        (Case T-240/00)                                 include the applicant’s name in the list of officials most
                                                                        deserving of promotion in 1997. That decision was adopted
                        (2000/C 302/80)                                 in consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                        of 14 April 1999 in Case T-50/98, by which that Court
                                                                        annulled the Commission’s decision not to promote the
                  (Language of the case: French)                        applicant in 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               By the present action, the applicant maintains that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Commission has not correctly complied with the aforesaid
European Communities on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo                    judgment. He claims that the Commission has failed to fulfil
Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                   its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and that it has
bourg), represented by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg              infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of officials and
Bar.                                                                    the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-438/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/11

         Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
   (Case T-438/12)
   2012/C 373/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

               —

               require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission rejecting the request submitted by the applicant to the Commission for inability to pay and/or deferred payment with an exemption from providing a bank guarantee.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the applicant’s ability to pay in order to discharge the fine.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the ability to pay of the applicant’s shareholders.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as, with regard to other companies in the sector, the Commission recognised that they were unable to pay, reduced the amount of the fine or exempted them from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence.

                           —

                           First, the Commission failed to provide the applicant with the opportunity to make its point of view known.

                           —

                           Second, the Commission exceeded its powers, by breaching the principle of collegiality.

                           —

                           Lastly, the Commission disregarded the obligation to state the reasons on which acts are based.


title: Case C-554/12 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 20 September 2012 in Case T-421/09 DEI v European Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/11

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 20 September 2012 in Case T-421/09 DEI v European Commission
   (Case C-554/12 P)
   2013/C 32/15
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Khristoforou and A. Antoniadis, Agents, and A. Ikonomou, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment of 20 September 2012 in Case T-421/09 in its entirety;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter if it is considered that the state of the proceedings so permits;

               —

               order DEI to pay its own costs, and the Commission’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By its judgment in Case T-421/09, the General Court annulled the decision of 4 August 2009 by which the Commission found that the corrective measures proposed by the Hellenic Republic were necessary and proportionate for removing the consequences of the infringement and ensuring compliance with the previous decision of 5 March 2008 (‘the decision of 4 August 2009’ or ‘the contested decision’). The General Court held that the contested decision had to be annulled, basing its assessment solely on the fact that the Commission’s previous decision of 5 March 2008, upon which the contested decision was exclusively founded, had in the meantime been annulled by its judgment in Case T-169/08, also delivered on 20 September 2012.

               2.

               Since the Commission considers that the General Court’s judgment in Case T-169/08 is based on many errors of law, on defective and insufficient reasoning and on misinterpretation of the evidence and of the basis of the Commission’s decision of 5 March 2008, it has already also brought an appeal against that judgment of the General Court. Therefore, if that appeal against the judgment in Case T-169/08 is upheld, the sole basis upon which the judgment under appeal in the present case (T-421/09) was founded will also automatically disappear.


title: Case F-12/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — A v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Occupational disease — Relationship between the procedures under Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Provisional allowance — Reimbursement of medical costs — Access to the individual file)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — A v Commission
   (Case F-12/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Occupational disease - Relationship between the procedures under Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations - Provisional allowance - Reimbursement of medical costs - Access to the individual file)
   2011/C 362/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: A (P., France) (represented by: B. Cambier and A. Paternostre, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application that the Commission be declared liable for certain faults allegedly committed against the applicant in the context of the procedure under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, and for the annulment of various decisions refusing to apply to the applicant the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, to communicate to him a series of documents forming part of his medical file and to reimburse him for certain medical costs — Application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 45.


title: Case T-296/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Reasonable grounds  — Judicial review  — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission
   (Case T-296/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Reasonable grounds - Judicial review - Proportionality))
   2014/C 135/36
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and N. Ruiz García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Urraca Caviedes and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Rivas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2368 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-430/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 November 2009 — Euro Tyre Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 November 2009 — Euro Tyre Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-430/09)
   2010/C 24/42
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro Tyre Holding B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 28c(A)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) and of Article 8(1)(a) and (b), the first subparagraph of Article 28a(1)(a), and the first subparagraph of Article 28b(A)(a) of the Sixth Directive, where, with regard to the same goods, two successive supplies are effected between taxable persons acting as such, in respect of which there is one single intra-Community dispatch or one single intra-Community transport, how should one determine to which supply the intra-Community transport should be ascribed, when the transport of the goods is effected by or at the expense of the person who acts both in the capacity of purchaser for the first supply and in the capacity of vendor in the second supply?

      (1)  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 1997 L 145, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2004 Case C-292/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations — Environment — End-of-life vehicles — Directive 2000/53/EC)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 July 2004
   Case C-292/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations - Environment - End-of-life vehicles - Directive 2000/53/EC)
   (2004/C 217/14)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-292/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — application for a declaration that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (OJ No L 269, p. 34) or, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-609/10 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2010 by Dieter C. Umbach against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Dieter C. Umbach v European Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/8

         Appeal brought on 23 December 2010 by Dieter C. Umbach against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Dieter C. Umbach v European Commission
   (Case C-609/10 P)
   2011/C 89/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Dieter C. Umbach (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Umbach v European Commission.

               —

               Annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008, reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991.

               —

               Order that the European Commission pay the costs of the case at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By his appeal, Mr Umbach appeals the decision of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 and seeks the setting aside of that judgment, by which he was refused full access to documents connected with a TACIS contract which concern him.
   The appellant is of the opinion that on the basis of obligations under primary law, in particular Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, direct access to documents which affect him must be permitted, in particular where a claim for payment is brought against him by the European Commission before a Member State court and he requires access to documents of the European Commission for the purposes of defending those proceedings.
   The European Commission on the other hand contends that only Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable and that it is thereby entitled to grant only limited access or to refuse such access.
   With regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the appellant claims that, to the extent that that regulation is applicable, the European Commission’s discretion concerning his fundamental rights is limited, leading to the same result under secondary law as is reached under the primary provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights referred to.


title: Case T-447/09: Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/55

         Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-447/09)
   2010/C 24/98
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 August 2009 relating to the set-off between the claim arising under contract FP7 239108 ICT — VAMDC/=PF=, and the Community’s alleged claim on the applicant under the NEMAGENETAG contract;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) seeks the annulment of the set-off measure contained in Decision BUDG/C3 D(2009) 10.5 — 1232 of 28 August 2009, by which the Commission recovered sums paid to the applicant pursuant to the NEMAGENETAG contract relating to a project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its application, alleging:

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision was taken without the Commission having considered the information in the applicant’s detailed response to the final audit report;

               —

               errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts which affected the decision and which led the Commission to refuse costs by adjusting the criteria for the assessment of eligible expenditure, and erroneously to dismiss conclusive evidence of expenditure incurred for the purposes of the project;

               —

               infringement of Article 73(1) of the Financial Regulation, in that (1) the claim at issue could not be regarded as ‘certain, of a fixed amount and due’, owing to the serious nature of the challenge mounted against it; (2) the claims offset against each other could not be regarded as reciprocal, since one is collective and the other personal; and (3) the amount of pre-financing payable under the VAMDC contract was not due at the time of the adoption of the set-off measure.


title: Case T-358/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/25

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans v Commission
   (Case T-358/06)
   (2007/C 20/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. (represented by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to Heijmans N.V. and Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V.;

               —

               set aside or reduce the fine imposed on Heijmans N.V. and Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL). Although the decision is not addressed to the claimant, it takes the view that it is directly and individually concerned by it inasmuch as it is mentioned in the decision as being part of the Heijmans Group and must expect, by reason of the decision, to be held liable in regard to the conduct in issue.
   In support of its action, the claimant first of all submits that there has been a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 2, 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the Commission wrongly assumed that the Netherlands market for bitumen used in road construction constituted the relevant economic context for the appraisal of the evidence against Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. The claimant further submits that the Commission also wrongly assumed that Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. was part of a permanent cartel of road construction undertakings operating with regard to the purchase of bitumen for road construction and, in that capacity, colluded with the suppliers of bitumen in the Netherlands with a view to restricting competition. Lastly, according to the claimant, the Commission unjustly failed, on the basis of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation, to check solely the consequences of the participation of Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V.in that collusion. (1)

   Second, the claimant alleges that there has been a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 11 and 16 of Regulation No 1/2003, as well as infringement of the duty of care, the general principles of sound administration, the principle of equality and the rights of the defence by reason of the fact that the Commission disregarded the reasoned substantive and procedural defence submissions made by Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. and Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. during the administrative procedure as being an 'innocent interpretation of the events'.
   Third, the claimant alleges infringement of the principle that reasons must be given in that the decision is unclear or ambiguous in certain vital sections.
   By way of alternative submission, the claimant argues the Commission has adduced no, or insufficient, evidence to substantiate the claim that Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. participated in the alleged infringement over the entire period thereof.
   Also in the alternative, the claimant submits that the Commission incorrectly assessed the gravity and scope of the infringement. It argues that Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. played merely a minor role on the relevant market.

      (1)  Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to horizontal cooperation agreements (text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001 C 3, p. 2).


title: Case T-275/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  9 November 2005  — Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Hi-FOCuS — Earlier national word mark FOCUS — Scope of the examination conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of evidence produced before the Board of Appeal)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 2005 — Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v OHIM
   (Case T-275/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Hi-FOCuS - Earlier national word mark FOCUS - Scope of the examination conducted by the Board of Appeal - Assessment of evidence produced before the Board of Appeal)
   (2006/C 10/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: U. Gürtler, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, B. Müller and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ECI Telecom Ltd (Petah Tikva, Israel)
   Application for
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2003 (Case R 913/2001-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and ECI Telecom Ltd,
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2003 (Case R 913/2001-4);

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


title: Case C-446/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), lodged on 17 November 2009 — Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd and Others

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), lodged on 17 November 2009 — Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd and Others
   (Case C-446/09)
   2010/C 24/54
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV

      Defendants: Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd and Others

      Question referred

   Does Article 6(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) of 22 December 1994 (the old Customs Regulation) constitute a uniform rule of Community law which must be taken into account by the court of the Member State which, in accordance with Article 7 of the Regulation, has been approached by the holder of an intellectual-property right, and does that rule imply that, in making its decision, the court may not take into account the temporary storage status/transit status and must apply the fiction that the goods were manufactured in that same Member State, and must then decide, by applying the law of that Member State, whether those goods infringe the intellectual-property right in question?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8).


title: Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Rothmans Group Holdings BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-188/97)

text:
No C 252/38           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Rothmans Group                      that the documents furnished, combined with the
Holdings BV against the Commission of the European                    documents denied, cannot amount to all the documents
                           Communities                                which the applicant addressed.
                        ( Case T-l 88/97
                          ( 97/C 252/80 )                             Therefore the applicant has brought this application under
                                                                      Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty, submitting that the
                                                                      contested decisions refusing access to the documents in
               (Language of the case: English)                        question are in part unreasoned and in part erroneously
                                                                      reasoned, if not simply out of time altogether.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The applicant maintains that the failure of DG XXI to
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                  reply by defining its position within one month of receipt
by Rothmans Group Holdings BV, represented by Scott                   of the application for access constituted an intention to
Crosby, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              refuse access within the meaning of the first paragraph of
Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue d'Eich.                           Article 2 (4 ) of the access decision. Beyond that, the
                                                                      Secretary-General's failure to define his position in time
                                                                      upon receipt of the application for review constituted a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           refusal within the meaning of the second paragraph of the
                                                                      said Article 2 ( 4 ).
— annul the decision of the Commission of 15 May 1997
     by which it refused access to all letters from the               According to the applicant, the Commission's position
     Commission to the Member States and to all letters               contradicts the general principle of the access code that
    from the Commission to members of the Customs                     'the public will have the widest possible access to
    Code Committee — Transit section,                                 documents held by the Commission and the Council', and
                                                                      is undemocratic and wholly contrary to the intentions of
                                                                      the Community legislature and the High Contracting
— annul the decision of the Commission of 15 May 1997                 Parties .
    by which the Commission refused access to the
    questionnaire, the account of the review and the note
    mentioned in the request,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 15 May 1997
    by which it refused access to the minutes of the                  Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Heinrich Mehlhop
    Customs Code Committee — Transit Section, or in the               against the Council of the European Union and the
    alternative to annul said decision insofar as it applies                    Commission of the European Communities
    to the minutes prior to 6 June 1996,
                                                                                (Case T-193/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/81 )
— in     the   alternative,    annul   the  decision    of  the
    Commission of 24 April 1997 whereby the
    Commission refused the applicant's request specified                            (Language of the case: German)
    in the application for access of 23 January 1997 for
    access to all documents without reason, and
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was lodged
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                   with the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European
    pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the           Communities on 27 June 1996 by Heinrich Mehlhop, of
    Court of First Instance .                                         Asendorf ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by
                                                                      Eckhard Mehlhop, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Lohoff
                                                                      Werner & Mehlhop, Hameln, with an address for service
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, of
                                                                      Messrs Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains. In
                                                                      accordance with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the
The applicant is a holding company of a number of                     EC Statute of the Court of Justice, it has been transmitted
subsidiaries in the European Community. The group's                   to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of the
principal activity is the manufacture, distribution and sale          European Communities .
of tobacco products, in particular cigarettes.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant tried several times by letters addressed to
DG XXI and the Secretary-General to get access to the
abovementioned documents, which directly affect its                   — order the Commission and the Council jointly and
financial interests, but obtained only some documents                     severally to pay to the applicant DM 76 857,95
because of alleged confidentiality. The applicant submits                 together with interest at 8 % from 1 October 1993 ,


title: Case C-36/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 96/82/EC and 2003/105/EC — Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances — Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-36/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 96/82/EC and 2003/105/EC - Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) - Incorrect transposition)
   2010/C 317/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, acting as Agent.)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt all the measures to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997, L 10, p. 13), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures to correctly transpose the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.


title: Case C-146/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v DHL Paket GmbH

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v DHL Paket GmbH
   (Case C-146/16)
   (2016/C 243/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

      Defendant and respondent: DHL Paket GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the information concerning the geographical address and identity of the trader, within the meaning of Article 7(4)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (1) appear in advertising material for specific products which appears in a print medium, even if consumers obtain the advertised products exclusively via a website of the trader who publishes the advertisement, and which is indicated in the advertisement, and consumers can easily obtain the information required by Article 7(4) of the Directive on or via that website?

               2.

               Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the undertaking advertising in the print medium is advertising sales of its own products and refers directly to its own website for the information required by Article 7(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, or whether the advertising relates to products which are sold by other undertakings on an internet platform operated by the advertiser, and consumers are able to access the information set out in Article 7(4) of the Directive only through one or more steps (clicks) via links to the internet sites of those other undertakings which are made available only on the website specified in the advertisement?

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