title: Case C-126/03: Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 146/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
Is Article 4(5) of Directive No 92/43 ( 1) of 21 May 1992 to be                 b)    If the answer to question 1(a) is affirmative: must
interpreted as meaning that the measures under Article 6 and,                         Article 22 of Directive 92/46/EEC be interpreted as
in particular, under Article 6(3) of that directive are mandatory                     meaning that in the case of imports from non-
for the Member States only after final approval at Community                          Member States that directive is applicable only to
level of the list of sites under Article 21 or, alternatively, in                     the milk constituent of a product and thus not to
addition to determination of the ordinary commencement date                           the product of which it is a constituent?
of conservation measures, must a distinction be drawn between
declaratory listing and determinative listing (including in the           2.    a)    Does the concept of ’milk-based products’ in
first category the listing of priority sites) with the result that,                   Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC concern only
in order to ensure the effectiveness of the directive, where a                        finished products or also semifinished products
Member State identifies a site of Community importance                                which must undergo further processing before they
sustaining priority natural habitat types or species, there must                      can be offered for sale to the consumer?
be considered to be an obligation to carry out an assessment
of plans and projects with a significant effect on the site even
before the Commission draws up the draft list of sites or                       b)    In the event that Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC
adopts the final version of that list pursuant to Article 21 of                       also refers to semifinished products, according to
the directive and, in fact, with effect from the drawing up of                        which criteria must it be determined whether milk
the national list?                                                                    or a milk product forms an essential part of a
                                                                                product, either in terms of quantity or for charac-
                                                                                terization of those products, as referred to in
                                                                                Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC?
( 1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 268 [1992], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court                   Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of
of 11 March 2003 in the case of (1) Artrada (Freezone)                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac. Meisner Internationaal                                              of Germany
Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
                        van Vee en Vlees
                                                                                (Case C-126/03)
                         (Case C-124/03)                                                            (2003/C 146/34)
                         (2003/C 146/33)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, of the Com-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                mission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                service in Luxembourg.
Industry) of 11 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on
20 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
(1) Artrada (Freezone) NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac.                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst
voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (Netherlands Livestock and               —     Declare that, by reason of the fact that the contract for
Meat Inspectorate) on the following questions:                                  waste transport concluded by the City of Munich was
                                                                                awarded without compliance with the notification
1.    a)    Must the term ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-                    requirements laid down in Article 8, in conjunction with
            based products’ in Article 2(2) of Directive 92/46/                 Articles 15(2) and 16(1), of Directive 92/50 (1), the
            EEC ( 1) be interpreted as meaning that it (also)                   Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
            includes milk constituents of a product which also                  obligations under that directive; and
            contains other non-milk constituents and where the
            milk constituent cannot be separated from the non-            —     Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
            milk constituents?                                                  of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         a)     Can an administrative measure which, on the terms and
                                                                               for the purposes stated in the reasoning, imposes on
                                                                               certain undertakings using the electricity transmission
If — as is the case with the Municipality of the City of Munich                network an increased charge for access and use in order
— the conditions for the existence of a body governed by                       to finance general revenue charges of the electricity
                                                                               system be regarded as a State aid for the purposes of
public law are met, there is no need under the directive to
draw a distinction, in the case of every requested provision of                Article 87 et seq. EC
services, as to whether such services are provided in the general
interest and are commercial in nature. It is for that reason            b)     Must the principles established in Directive 96/92 (1)
irrelevant that, in the present case, the City of Munich, in                   concerning the liberalisation of the internal electricity
connection with the provision of a service for a third party,                  market and in particular Article 7 and 8 thereof concern-
burns waste in its own incineration plant and does not effect                  ing operation of the electricity transmission network be
the transport to that plant itself but relies on a private                     interpreted as precluding the possibility for the Member
undertaking to do so. If a public body tenders successfully for                State to adopt measures imposing for a transitional period
a contract but is obliged to subcontract out certain services in               on certain undertakings for access to and use of the
order to ensure provision of the overall service, that public                  transmission network an increased charge in order to
body must apply the procedures set out in Directive 92/50.                     offset the overvaluation of hydroelectric and geothermal
                                                                               electricity occasioned, as stated in the reasoning, by the
                                                                               altered legislative framework and to finance general
The obligation to end breaches of the Community law on the                     revenue charges of the electricity system.
award of contracts even by terminating contracts that have
already been concluded can also not be placed in question by
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 (2), which deals with ex post          (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
facto review of potential breaches of the Community law on                   of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
tendering. A Treaty infringement can be treated as terminated                market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20).
only once the Member State concerned recognises the illegal
nature of its action and the breach has been completely
brought to an end.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-130/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                                              (2003/C 146/36)
Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM
Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia
  elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 March
                 (Case C-128/03 and C-129/03)                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Niels Bertil Rasmussen and Luigi Cimaglia,
                                                                        acting as Agents.
                          (2003/C 146/35)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —      Declare that, by failing to designate Community trade
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                        mark courts and tribunals of first and second instance, or
(Council of State) of 14 January 2003, received at the Court                   in any event by failing to forward to the Commission,
Registry on 24 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                     within the prescribed period, a list of such courts and
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino                         tribunals indicating their names and territorial jurisdic-
SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per                tion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA on the following                      under Article 91 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
questions:                                                                     of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 February 1999 in Case C-343/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno (Italy)): Dilexport Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Internal taxes contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty - Recovery of sums paid but not due - National rules of procedure)

text:
C 100/4               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 3. Community law precludes a Member State from
                                                                        making repayment of customs duties and taxes
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                  contrary to Community law subject to a condition,
                                                                        such as the requirement that such duties or taxes have
                     of 9 February 1999
                                                                        not been passed on to third parties, which the plaintiff
in Case C-343/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               must show he has satisfied.
the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata
di Vipiteno (Italy)): Dilexport Srl v. Amministrazione delle
                    Finanze dello Stato (1)
                                                                    4. Community law does not preclude the imposition, in
(Internal taxes contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty Ð                  the case of claims for repayment of customs duties or
Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð National rules of                   taxes contrary to Community law, of the non-
                          procedure)                                    retroactive requirement which, if not fulfilled, renders
                                                                        the claim inadmissible, that notice thereof is to be
                       (1999/C 100/05)                                  given ot the tax authority which received the tax
                                                                        return of the person concerned for the year in
                                                                        question.
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-343/96: Reference to the Court under
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale
di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Dilexport Srl and Amministrazione delle
Finanze dello Stato on the interpretation of Community                                   of 9 February 1999
law relating to sums paid but not due Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                    in Case C-167/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur,
                                                                    the House of Lords): Regina v. Secretary of State for
President of the Chamber), C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
                                                                                Employment (1)
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges, D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General, D. Louterman-                     (Men and women Ð Equal pay Ð Equal treatment Ð
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             Compensation for unfair dismissal Ð Definition of pay'
given a judgment on 9 February 1999, in which it has                Ð Right of a worker not to be unfairly dismissed Ð
ruled:                                                              Whether falling under Article 119 of the EC Treaty or
                                                                    Directive 76/207/EEC Ð Legal test for determining
                                                                    whether a national measure constitutes indirect
1. Community law does not preclude national provisions              discrimination for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC
    from making repayment of customs duties or taxes                              Treaty Ð Objective justification)
    contrary to Community law subject to less favourable
    time-limits and procedural conditions than those laid                                 (1999/C 100/06)
    down for actions between private individuals for
    recovery of sums paid but not due, provided that those
    conditions apply in the same way to actions for
    repayment which are based on Community law and to                              (Language of the case: English)
    those based on national law and do not make it
    impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right
    to repayment.
                                                                    In case C-167/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty by the House of Lords (United Kingdom)
2. Community law does not preclude the adoption by a                for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
    Member State, following judgments of the Court                  that court, Regina v. Secretary of State for Employment,
    declaring duties or charges to be contrary to                   ex parte Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez, on the
    Community law, of provisions which render the                   interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council
    conditions for repayment applicable to those duties             Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    and charges less favourable than those which would              implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    otherwise have been applied, provided that the duties           men and women as regards access to employment,
    and charges in question are not specifically targeted by        vocational training and promotion, and working
    that amendment and the new provisions do not make               conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,
    it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the          composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.
    right to repayment.                                             Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/5

         Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
   2009/C 267/08
   At its meeting on 9 October 2009, the Court of Justice of the European Communities designated the Third Chamber of the Court as the Chamber which, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, is responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure, for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2010.


title: Case T-35/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — Bank Melli Iran v Council

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/47

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — Bank Melli Iran v Council
   (Case T-35/10)
   2010/C 100/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 4, section B, of the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 110/2009 concerning restrictive measures against Iran as well as the decision of the Council of 18 November 2009;

               —

               order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 (1) implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2) and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (3) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annexe, in so far as it relates to the applicant and puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant argues that the contested regulation and decision were adopted in violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and, in particular, its right to have a fair hearing since it did not receive any evidence or documents to support the allegations of the Council. It further states that the additional allegations to the 2008 decision are vague, unclear and impossible for the applicant to respond since it was refused the right to be heard.
   The applicant also submits that the defendant infringed its obligation to provide sufficient motivation.
   Second, the applicant claims that the Council failed to state individual and specific reasons for contested acts in violation of Article 15.3 of Regulation No 423/2007.
   Third, the applicant contends that the defendant committed an error in interpretation of Article 7(2)(a) (b) and (c) of Regulation No 423/2007 since, in the applicant’s opinion, the Council failed to explain how the applicant’s ordinary banking activities prove its engagement or direct association with Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.
   In addition, the applicant contests the legality of the General Court’s judgment of 14 October 2009 (4), appealed by the applicant before the Court of justice (5) by which the General Court dismissed its application aiming at annulment of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 (6). In this regard the applicant claims that the Court committed an error of law by holding that Regulation No 423/2007 and Decision 2008/475/EC were legally adopted by qualifying majority and not unanimity of members. In the applicant’s opinion, since the Regulation No 423/2007 constitutes the legal basis for the adoption of the regulation and decision contested in the present application, the abovementioned reasoning is applicable to the present application. Thus, the applicant submits that the Council infringed substantial procedural requirement imposed by the Treaty, by the rules of law relating to its enforcement and by Article 7(2) of Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (7).
   Further, the applicant contests the General Court’s judgment in so far as the Court held that the power of appreciation of the Council, based on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007, is autonomous and thus rejected the relevance of decisions of the United Nations Security Council in violation of the principle of proportionality and of the right of property. The applicant submits that the same reasoning applies to the regulation and decision contested in the present case since the Council did not take into account the decisions of the UNSC and therefore violated the principle of proportionality and the right of property.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L303, p.31

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1

      (3)  Council Decision of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29

      (4)  Case T-390/08, Bank Melli Iran v Council, not yet reported

      (5)  C-548/09 P, Bank Melli Iran v Council

      (6)  OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29

      (7)  Council Common Position 2007/140/CFSP of 27 February 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2007 L 61, p. 49


title: Case T-367/03: Action brought on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 59/22               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve                       lack of sufficient financial aid and therefore a disadvantage in
Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. against the Council of                    terms of fair competition with other companies in the field.
the European Union and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                          (1) Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of
                                                                              22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the
                                                                              Customs Union (OJ L 35 of 13 February 1996, p. 1).
                        (Case T-367/03)                                   (2) Agreement establishing an Association between the European
                                                                              Economic Community and Turkey (OJ P 217 of 29 December
                                                                              1964, p. 3687) (No English text available).
                         (2004/C 59/36)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van
                                                                          Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                                                (Case T-395/03)
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve                                            (2004/C 59/37)
Ticaret A.S., Istanbul, (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     grant compensation to the applicant for the loss incurred           European Communities on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van
      due to the Customs Union procedures generally, which                Weyenbergh, resident in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
      arose from the Ankara Agreement, the Additional Proto-              Carlos Mourato, lawyer.
      col and its appendices, and especially the Common
      Council Decision No 1/95 of the European Community.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the selection board of Competition
                                                                                COM/TB/99 not to include the applicant in the list of
                                                                                suitable candidates;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 72 924,00, subject to modification in the course of
                                                                                the proceedings, in respect of damages for material and
The applicant is a small and medium sized enterprise, active in                 non-material loss;
the automotive industry. The applicant claims to have suffered
a loss caused by the customs union between the European                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.
Union and Turkey (1), established in 1996. According to the
applicant, the European Union has not fulfilled all of its
obligations arising from the customs union and the Ankara                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Agreement (2).
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/
The applicant claims that Turkey would be given loans and                 00 and T-364/00 (1) annulling the decision of the selection
donations from the Community’s program for Mediterranean                  board to reject the applicant’s candidature for internal Compe-
countries and from the European Union’s budget resources in               tition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list of
order to eliminate the negative effects of the customs union              administrative assistants in career bracket B4/B5, the applicant
on Turkey’s economy. According to the applicant, the assist-              was called to a new oral test. She objects to the failure to
ance given was inadequate. The applicant, as a small and                  include her name on the list of suitable candidates in this
medium company, claims to have suffered losses due to the                 competition.


title: Case T-691/16: Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Elevolution-Engenharia v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/26

      Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Elevolution-Engenharia v Commission
      (Case T-691/16)
      (2016/C 441/30)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Elevolution-Engenharia SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pinto Cardoso and L. Fuzeta da Ponte, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  grant the application in its entirety and thereby annul the Commission’s decisions containing the debit notes received by the applicant by letter on 3 August 2016;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, to be assessed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging lack of competence. It is submitted that the Commission lacks the competence and powers to adopt the acts which are to be annulled.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. The reasoning of the disputed notes is implied or tacit, or clothed in obscurity, and the notes are not consistent with EU law.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringements of the Treaty and rules for its implementation.


C 45/16                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Action brought on 22 December 2000 by the Commission                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   Cassation Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et
                                                                          Économique, by judgment of that court of 19 December
                                                                          2000 in the case of Ravil S.à r.l. against Bellon Import
                                                                                S.à r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A.
                          (Case C-468/00)
                                                                                (Case C-469/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/31)
                           (2001/C 45/30)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et Économique,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December               of 19 December 2000, received at the Court Registry on
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       27 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Bernard Mongin, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,            Ravil S.à r.l. v Bellon Import Sà r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A. on the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                following question:
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ‘Must Article 29 (ex Article 34) of the EC Treaty be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding national legislation reserving the “grana padano”
                                                                          designation of origin for cheese grated in the region of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              production in so far as such an obligation is not indispensable
                                                                          for preserving specific characteristics which the product has
                                                                          acquired?’
1.    declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
      harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national
      boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and
      passengers by inland waterway in the Community (1), or,
      in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-502/99 (1)
      to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                (2001/C 45/32)
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-502/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v French Republic.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), whereby a directive is binding
upon any Member State to which it is addressed as to the
result to be achieved, implies an obligation on Member States
to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in
directives. That time-limit expired on 7 April 1998 without                      Removal from the register of Case C-318/99 (1)
the French Republic implementing the necessary provisions to
comply with Directive 96/50/EC.                                                                     (2001/C 45/33)
                                                                          By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
(1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31.                                                 from the register of Case C-318/99: Italian Republic v Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Case T-764/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/43

         Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-764/15)
   (2016/C 068/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.32833 (2011/C) (ex 20111NN) — Hahn Airport;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits, in essence, the following:

               —

               procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014,

               —

               incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision,

               —

               incorrect legal assessment of the measures in favour of the airport concerned in so far as certain measures were not classified as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) of TFEU and others were classified as State aid which is compatible with the common market,

               —

               failure to take into consideration that all the aid referred to in the contested decision in favour of the airport concerned was, in end effect, passed on to Ryanair as the most important user of that airport.


               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/1

         2010/C 51/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 37, 13.2.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

      OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

      OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

      OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

      OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

      OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-72/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)
   (Case T-72/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 155/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2013 (Case R 284/2013-2) concerning the registration of the word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES as an international registration designating the European Community.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-276/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/4

         Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut)
   (Case T-276/09)
   2009/C 244/07
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Kavaklidere-Europe N.V. (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: I.D. Tygat and J.A. Vercraeye, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha (Tokyo, Japan)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 May 2009 in case R 1396/2008-4;

               —

               Declare that the trade mark ‘Yakut’ should be allowed for registration as a Community trade mark; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Yakut’, for goods in class 33

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘Yakult’ for goods in classes 29 and 32; the earlier mark ‘YAKULT’ claimed to be well-known in all the Member States of the European Union for goods in classes 29 and 32; the earlier non-registered trade mark ‘YAKULT’ claimed to be protected in all the Member States of the European Union for goods in classes 29 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its findings that the goods applied for had to be considered similar and that there is a high degree of visual and phonetic similarity between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the Community trade mark concerned takes unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings.


title: Case T-234/01: Action brought on 28 September 2001 by Andreas Stihl AG & Co. against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 348/24               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8.12.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio                       Action brought on 28 September 2001 by Andreas Stihl
Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and                  AG & Co. against the Office for Harmonization in the
the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-230/01)                                                        (Case T-234/01)
                         (2001/C 348/47)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/48)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
rio Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and the
Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
Alava (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.                   An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             28 September 2001 by Andreas Stihl AG & Co., Waiblingen
                                                                        (Germany), represented by Rechtsanwalt S. Völker with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg.
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action; in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision;
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal 24 July
                                                                              2001 in Case R 447/2000-1 relating to Community
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Trade Mark application No 338 194;
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 1760                 —     order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common                  (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
market the tax reductions arising from Article 26 of Norma
Foral (Regional Law) No 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corpor-
ation tax (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Alava of
9 August 1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %,
75 %, 50 % and 25 % of the basis for assessment of the
aforementioned tax applicable during the first four tax years
for undertakings which set up business in the Territorio                Pleas in law and main arguments
Histórico de Alava with effect from the entry into force of the
Law, provided that they have disbursed capital amounting to
more than ESP 20 million (EUR 120 202), invest more than
                                                                        Trade mark:                   Combination of two particular
ESP 80 million (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new
                                                                                colours namely an orange (colour
jobs.                                                                                Pantone 164c) and a grey (colour
                                                                                Pantone 428u) — Colour mark
                                                                                — Application No 338 194
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.                                                               Goods or services:            Goods in Class 7 (including motor
                                                                                saws, mechanical cutting-off
                                                                                machines with guide devices and
                                                                                mechanical cutting apparatus)
 ---pagebreak--- 8.12.2001           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348/25
Decision       contested Refusal of the trade mark applica-                                     —    no grounds for refusing to
before the Board of      tion                                                                        register the mark, in particu-
Appeal:                                                                                lar no need to keep it free
Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal                                                —    infringement or misinter-
Appeal:                                                                                pretation of the relevant pro-
                                                                                visions of the Regulation.
Pleas in law:            —    no absolute grounds for
                              refusal within the meaning
                              of Article 7(1)(b)and (c) of        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                              Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)            Community Trade Mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-272/12 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/9

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission
   (Case C-272/12 P)
   2012/C 235/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte, D. Grespan, N. Khan and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, Ireland, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 March 2012, notified to the Commission on 23 March 2012, in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission,

               —

               refer the cases back to the General Court for reconsideration,

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission has brought an appeal before the Court of Justice against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy. (1)

   The appellant raises five pleas in law in support of its appeal, based on a lack of jurisdiction of the General Court, a breach of procedure before the General Court which adversely affects the interests of the Commission and infringement of European Union law.
   First, the General Court made errors of law by raising, of its own motion, in the five joined cases, a plea alleging infringement of Article 87(1) EC on the basis that the national measures at issue are not imputable to the Member States. In any event, in Cases T-56/06 RENV and T-60/06 RENV, it raised, of its own motion, the pleas alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and/or the presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures in order to annul the Commission’s decision in its entirety, although those pleas had only been put forward to oppose the order for recovery.
   Secondly, in deciding, contrary to what was held by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-89/08 P Commission v Ireland and Others [2009] ECR I-11245, that the concept of distortion of competition possesses the same scope and meaning concerning State aid and the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to taxes, the General Court made errors of law and, in particular, infringed the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, under which, when the Court annuls a decision of the General Court and refers the case back to the latter for judgment, the General Court is bound by the points of law decided by the Court of Justice.
   Thirdly, by taking the view that the exemptions at issue do not constitute State aid because they had been authorised by the Council under the rules on tax harmonisation, that they are not thus imputable to Member States and that they are, therefore, not subject to the procedure for monitoring aid established by the treaty, the General Court made errors of law in determining the respective jurisdictions of the Council and the Commission, as well as in determining the relationships between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid, and infringed Articles 87 and 88 EC and the principle of institutional balance.
   Fourthly, the General Court interpreted contra legem Council Decision 2001/224/EC of 12 March 2001 concerning reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes. (2) According to the appellant, the General Court based its interpretation on the Council’s response to a question from the Court, in infringement of the rules governing the interpretation of the acts of the institutions, and distorted the meaning of that response of the Council.
   Finally, in so far as it is based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty, the principle of the presumption of legality and the principle of good administration, the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons or tainted with the same defects as those identified in the second, third and fourth pleas.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 84, p. 23


title: Case C-445/15: Order of the President of the Court of 5 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Nutricia Limited v Secretary of State for Health

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Nutricia Limited v Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-445/15) (1)

   (2016/C 136/31)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-92/02: Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH and Wuppertaler Stadtwerke AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 144/54               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
—     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;                    finds therein that reserves for waste disposal by and the
                                                                               shutdown of nuclear power plants in the Federal Republic
                                                                               of Germany do not constitute aid within the meaning of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                               Article 87(1) EC;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 4448
final of 20 December 2001 declaring State aid incompatible               Pleas in law and main arguments
with the common market the exemption from company tax
arising from Article 14 of Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 11/
1993 of 26 June 1993 on urgent fiscal provisions to promote
investment and economic activity (Boletı́n Oficial de Gipuzkoa
                                                                         The applicants are all public utilities producing their own
No 128 of 8 July 1993), which provides for exemption from
                                                                         electricity. They operate their own conventional electricity
company tax for undertakings created between the entry into
                                                                         production plants and, as energy producers and suppliers, are
force of that Law and 31 December 1994, provided that they
                                                                         in direct competition with the operators of nuclear power
invest more than PTA 80 million (EUR 480 810), create more
                                                                         plants in the Federal Republic of Germany.
than 10 new jobs and have disbursed capital amounting to
more than PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202).
                                                                         According to the applicants, the commercial and tax law
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                   situation in the Federal Republic of Germany places the
applicants are identical to those put forward in Case T-86/02.           operators of nuclear power plants at an advantage since they
                                                                         are able to include large amounts of the costs of the later
                                                                         shutdown of the nuclear power plants and of the disposal of
                                                                         radioactive waste in their provisions. The applicants claim
                                                                         that, as a result, the profit actually realised by such operators
                                                                         is reduced by the sum of the reserves, thus exempting them to
                                                                         a considerable extent from the liability to pay income tax. The
                                                                         operators are able to dispose freely of the sums included in the
                                                                         reserves. The applicants, however, do not enjoy such an
                                                                         advantage.
Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Stadtwerke Schwä-
bisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwer-
ke Uelzen GmbH and Wuppertaler Stadtwerke AG against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicants, who have filed an application with the
                                                                         defendant for the opening of a procedure against the Federal
                          (Case T-92/02)                                 Republic of Germany pursuant to Article 87 EC (1), claim that
                                                                         the unequal treatment resulting from the tax law and fiscal
                                                                         practice in the Federal Republic of Germany constitutes non-
                        (2002/C 144/107)                                 notified and unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC
                                                                         which is incompatible with the common market. The tax
                                                                         impact of the reserves represents an intervention distorting an
                   (Language of the case: German)                        existing competitive relationship and affecting trade between
                                                                         Member States. It is not merely a case of the application of
                                                                         general rules of accounting and tax law but, rather, an
                                                                         unjustified exception to the basic structure of the German tax
                                                                         law system.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Stadtwerke
Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Schwäbisch Hall (Germany) and
3 other undertakings, represented by D.A. Fouquet, lawyer.               (1) The applicants have brought an action for failure to act with
                                                                             respect to this complaint (Case T-291/01 Dessauer Versorgungs-
                                                                             und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH and Others v Commission, OJ 2002
                                                                             C 44, p. 19).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of
      11 December 2001, to the extent that the Commission


title: Case T-389/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/18

         Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
   (Case T-389/14)
   2014/C 329/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1854/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  441

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.


title: Case T-181/00: Action brought on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 273/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.9.2000
remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by the           —     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
Commission. On the other hand, in the assumption that the                       person to fill that post;
Council did have power to reject the proposal, such rejection
was illegal in the present case, because it constituted
                                                                          —     in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision
                                                                                of the appointing authority rejecting the pre-litigation
—     a wilful disregard or manifest error of appreciation of the               claim made by the applicant;
      facts found by the Commission
—     a denial of procedural rights and legitimate expectations           —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
      of the complainants                                                       decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
—     a failure to state adequate reasons as required by
                                                                                information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
      Article 253 EC
                                                                                applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                                worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
Finally, the applicant claims that the Council is liable under                  future career;
Article 288(2) EC because its failure to adopt protective
measures amounts to unlawful conduct which caused and
continues to cause damage to the applicant.                               —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
                                                                                decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                                applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                    candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members                lost an opportunity of promotion;
    of the European Community, OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1, as last amended
    by Council Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ
    L 128, p. 18.                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                          Cases T-135/00, T-136/00 and T-164/00.
Action brought on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-181/00)
                         (2000/C 273/24)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
                                                                                N.V. against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello,                                            (Case T-183/00)
residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre
Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (2000/C 273/25)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting his application                              (Language of the case: French)
      for post COM/090/99 IV/C/1 as head of unit with
      responsibility for directing and coordinating the work of
      the ‘Telecommunications and Postal Services’ unit within            An action against the Council of the European Union was
      the Information, Communications and Multimedia Direc-               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      torate, and annul all preparatory acts adopted in antici-           Communities on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
      pation of that decision which may themselves prove to               N.V., established at Stabroek (Belgium), represented by André
      be irregular;                                                       Delvaux, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Case T-340/13: Action brought on 25 June 2013 — Federación Española de Hostelería v EACEA

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/13

         Action brought on 25 June 2013 — Federación Española de Hostelería v EACEA
   (Case T-340/13)
   2013/C 245/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Española de Hostelería (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. del Nogal Méndez and R. Fernández Flores, lawyers)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul decision 2007-19641 134736-LLP-I-2007-1-ES-Leonardo-LMP;

               —

               In the alternative, return the proceedings to the point of the date of dispatch of the misaddressed communications from the auditors, allowing the applicant to make appropriate representations;

               —

               In the further alternative, reduce, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the amount which the Commission seeks to recover;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the professional fees and other costs incurred in the present case;

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the amounts paid together with the corresponding interest.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the established procedure

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the communications concerning the auditor’s report were sent to a third-party, external to the relationship established between the applicant and the defendant Executive Agency.

               2.

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

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that the recovery decision is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons, since the Executive Agency sent only a debit note to the applicant, accompanied by the auditor’s report.

               3.

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

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that it was not given an opportunity during the administrative procedure to make known its point of view on the accuracy and relevance of the allegations against it and on all of the documents that the Commission used to support its claim alleging breach of European Union law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicant claims that although the contract was concluded in April 2009, the Executive Agency did not give any indication, until April 2013, that it disagreed in any way at all with the arrangements for developing and implementing the Project.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of power.

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that the Commission did not inform it of the facts that could be alleged against it, and did not give it the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of the penalty.

               6.

               Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-8/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/25

      Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM
      (Case T-8/14)
      (2014/C 71/46)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned:‘Just crunch it …’ word mark for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 713 485.

         Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1921/2012-1

         Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2004 in Case T-207/02: Nicoletta Falcone v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the written tests as a result of the marks obtained in the pre-selection tests — Alleged unlawfulness of the notice of competition)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/33

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 October 2004
   in Case T-207/02: Nicoletta Falcone v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Non-admission to the written tests as a result of the marks obtained in the pre-selection tests - Alleged unlawfulness of the notice of competition)
   (2005/C 6/65)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-207/02: Nicoletta Falcone, a candidate in Competition COM/A/10/01, represented by M. Condinanzi, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of 2 May 2002 of the selection board in Competition COM/A/10/01 to exclude the applicant from the written tests on the ground that she did not obtain sufficient marks to be included among the 400 best candidates — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-360/14P: Appeal brought on 24 July 2014 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2014 in Case T-198/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/43

         Appeal brought on 24 July 2014 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2014 in Case T-198/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-360/14P)
   2014/C 315/70
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents, U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 May 2014 in Case T-198/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 concerning the national provisions notified by the German Federal Government maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys beyond the entry into application of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (1), in so far as the Court dismissed the action;

               2.

               Annul Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 in so far as the national provisions notified for maintenance of the limit values for antimony, arsenic and mercury are not approved; in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

               3.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal in total:

                  First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed Article 114(4) TFEU in three ways. It failed to respect the principle of the autonomous Member State risk assessment, in so far as it held, due to the fact that the measures notified by the appellant were based on an irregular risk assessment, that they were unsuitable. In addition, the Court unlawfully demanded proof that the level of protection guaranteed by Directive 2009/48/EC is in itself insufficient. Finally, the Court’s findings are based on an incorrect understanding of the law in so far as it precluded a quantitative comparison of the level of protection based on limit values.

                  Second ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the obligation to state the reasons on which a judgment is based under Articles 36 and 53(1) of the Statute of the Court. First, its statement of reasons relating to Table 1 submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany is inconsistent in so far as it refers on the one hand to alleged errors in calculation and on the other hand to an alleged error in measurement. Secondly, the statement of reasons is insufficient since the Court accepts that the comparison of migration limit values submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany fail to demonstrate a high level of protection, without examining the significance of the category of materials capable of being removed by scraping.

                  Third ground of appeal: The Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence in three ways. First, the contents of Table 3 submitted by the appellant are clearly misconstrued. In addition, the Court clearly wrongfully assumes that the Table of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment submitted by the appellant contains unreliable data. Finally, the Court clearly misconstrued the Report of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) of 1 July 2010, in so far as it deduced from that report a statement concerning the reliability of bioavailability limit values, which clearly was not made by SCHER.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 80, p. 19.


               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/1

         2009/C 282/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

      OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

      OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

      OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

      OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

      OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-63/05: Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/21

         Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-63/05)
   (2005/C 82/42)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/3/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient air (OJ L 67 of 9.3.2002, p. 14) and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 9 September 2003.


C 113/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11.4.98
      Removal from the register of Case T-193/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case T-245/97 (1)
                        (98/C 113/55)                                                      (98/C 113/57)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: English)
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First             By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of           Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Case T-193/97: Heinrich Mehlhop v. Council of the                  removal from the register of Case T-245/97: Kaufhof
European Union and Commission of the European                      Warenhaus AG v. Commission of the European
Communities.                                                       Communities.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case T-239/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case T-265/97 (1)
                        (98/C 113/56)                                                      (98/C 113/58)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             By order of 5 March 1998 the President of the Third
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-239/97: Christos Venetidis v. European Parliament.          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-265/97: Region of Tuscany v. Commission of the
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.                                           European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


20150731060617112015/C 270/558202014TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150619424214Case T-820/14: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4240120150619EN0055424421Order of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission
   (Case T-820/14) (
         1
      )2015/C 270/55Language of the case: ItalianThe President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case C-600/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfill obligations — Environment — Waste management — Directives 2008/98/EC, 1999/31/EC and 92/43/EEC — Discharge of waste on the island of Zakinthos — Zakinthos national marine park — Natura 2000 site — Caretta caretta sea turtle — Extension of the validity period of environmental clauses — Lack of conditioning plan — Operation of a landfill site — Faults — Saturation of the landfill site — Infiltration of leachate — Insufficient coverage and dispersion of waste — Extension of the landfill site)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-600/12) (1)

   ((Failure to fulfill obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directives 2008/98/EC, 1999/31/EC and 92/43/EEC - Discharge of waste on the island of Zakinthos - Zakinthos national marine park - Natura 2000 site - Caretta caretta sea turtle - Extension of the validity period of environmental clauses - Lack of conditioning plan - Operation of a landfill site - Faults - Saturation of the landfill site - Infiltration of leachate - Insufficient coverage and dispersion of waste - Extension of the landfill site))
   2014/C 315/10
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Düsterhaus, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               declares that

                           —

                           by keeping in operation on the island of Zakinthos, at Griparaiika, in the area of Kalamaki (Greece), a landfill site which is malfunctioning, which is full and which does not observe the conditions and requirements of the environmental legislation of the European Union laid down in Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Articles 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 12 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and

                           —

                           by renewing the landfill permit for the site in question without complying with the procedure that is laid down by Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2)

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-379/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Caves Krier Frères SARL v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Subsidy for the recruitment of older unemployed persons and the long-term unemployed — Condition of registration with a placement office of the national employment administration — Residence condition — Restriction — Justification)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Caves Krier Frères SARL v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi
   (Case C-379/11) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Subsidy for the recruitment of older unemployed persons and the long-term unemployed - Condition of registration with a placement office of the national employment administration - Residence condition - Restriction - Justification)
   2013/C 38/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Caves Krier Frères SARL

      Respondent: Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU — National legislation making reimbursement of social security contributions to private sector employers upon the hiring of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the persons be registered with a placement office of the national employment administration for at least one month — Registration condition subject to a residence condition — Obstacle to the free movement of workers — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant to employers of a subsidy for the recruitment of unemployed persons aged over 45 years subject to the condition that the unemployed person recruited has been registered as a job seeker in that same Member State, in the case where such registration is subject to a condition of residence in the national territory, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-278/11: Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ClientEarth and others/Commission

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/20

         Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ClientEarth and others/Commission
   (Case T-278/11)
   2011/C 219/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Friends of the Earth Europe (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Stichting Fern (Leiden, Netherlands); and Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1);

               —

               Declare the Commission in violation of the Aarhus Convention (2);

               —

               Declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1367/2006 (3);

               —

               Annul the Decision under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, by which there was an implied negative decision the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time-limits to the applicants’ confirmatory application;

               —

               Grant injunctive relief as provided for by the Aarhus Convention Article 9(4) ordering the Commission to provide within a set timeframe access to all requested documents, unless protected under an absolute exception in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants request the annulment of the Commission’s refusal of their request to grant access to documents related to the voluntary certification schemes seeking recognition from the Commission under Article 18 of Directive 2009/28 (4).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 8(2) of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to provide a reply within the prescribed time and to give detailed reasons for requesting an extension.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to reply within the extended time limit.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 7 and 8 of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to provide detailed reasons for withholding each document.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 6, 7 and 8 of regulation No 1049/2001 due to the Commission’s failure to provide a concrete, individual assessment of the content of each document.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(2) of regulation No 1049/2001 and Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 due to the reliance upon the exception for the protection of commercial interests.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(3) of regulation No 1049/2001 and Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 due to the application of the exception that the disclosure of the documents would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) and 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in that the Commission failed to assess which part of the documents could or could not be disclosed and failed to assess the period of application of the applicable exception.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  UN/ECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters.

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, p. 13).

      (4)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ L 140, p. 16).


title: Case T-461/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Kaddour v Council

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/19

         Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Kaddour v Council
   (Case T-461/16)
   (2016/C 383/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syrie) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they relate and/or refer to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      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 the contested measures (i) are an abuse of process and so a misuse of powers; and (ii) amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s right to good administration and right to an effective remedy and a fair trial.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 66 TFUE.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the principle of non-discrimination.