title: Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-110/96)

text:
No C 158/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   1 . 6 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                                    ( Case C- 1 09/96 )
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to comply                                          ( 96/C 158/ 12 )
with the Directives which are addressed to them within the
period prescribed therein. That period expired on 1 April              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
 1993 without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
force the necessary provisions .                                       3 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                              Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .                            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of                also to communicate to the Commission in due time the
27 March 1996 in the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party:                laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Union professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                   necessary in order to comply fully with Council
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                     Directive 91/371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on the
Queen and Others , party liable at civil law: Vision Express               implementation of the Agreement between the European
                             Belgium SA                                    Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation
                         ( Case C-108/96 )                                 concerning direct insurance other than life
                                                                           assurance (');
                           ( 96/C 158/ 11 )
                                                                       — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
Brussels ) of 27 March 1996 , which was received at the                Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Court Registry on 3 April 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in          European Community directives are to be binding upon
the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party: Union                       each Member State to which they are addressed . The
professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                     Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                 necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Queen, Derek Pouton, Caria Emma Johanna Godts and                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
Youssef Antoun, party liable at civil law: Vision Express              measures to the Commission .
Belgium SA, on the following questions :
                                                                       (') OJ No L 205 , 1991 , p . 48 .
1 . Is a prohibition, arising from the interpretation or the
      application of a provision of national law, restraining
      opticians in other Member States from offering within a
      Member State, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, services consisting of an objective
      eyesight examination, that is to say otherwise than by          Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      using a method by which the client himself determines               European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      the eyesight deficiencies and sees to the corection to be                              ( Case C-1 10/96 )
      made , compatible with Articles 5 , 52 and 59 of the EC
      Treaty ?                                                                                ( 96/C 158 /13 )
2 . Are obstacles within a Member State to the marketing of           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      equipment which enables an objective eyesight                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      examination to be carried out with a view to correcting          3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
      purely optical eyesight defects, such as, for example, an        Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
      autorefractor, arising from the ban imposed by national         Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
      law on opticians established in other Member States              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
      preventing them from offering, within that Member                Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      State, services consisting of an objective eyesight
      examination, that is to say a non-subjective                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
      examination, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, compatible with Article 30 of the EC          — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      Treaty ?                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                           also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 6 . 96           I EN     |            Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 158/7
      necessary in order to comply fully with Council                 Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      Directive 91 /674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the                     European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance
                                                                                ( Case C-1 12/96
      undertakings (');
                                                                                ( 96/C 158 / 15 )
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the                Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
European Community directives are to be binding upon                  Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
each Member State to which they are addressed . The                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures                    Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
measures to the Commission .
                                                                      — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
(') OJ No L 374 , 1991 , p . 7 .                                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                            also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                            the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            necessary in order to comply fully with Council
                                                                            Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the                     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
     European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                     provisions relating to direct life assurance (') and
                        ( Case C-111 /96                                    amending Directives 79/267/EEC ( 2 ) and 90/619/EEC ( 3 )
                          ( 96/C 158/ 14 )                                  ( third life assurance directive );
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice . of the European Communities on
3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in             Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the           European Community directives are to be binding upon
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 each Member State to which they are addressed . The
                                                                      Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
                                                                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
— declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its         measures to the Commission .
      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
      also to communicate to the Commission in due time               (') OJ No L 360, 1992 , p . 1 .
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions             ( 2 ) OJ No L 63 , 1979 , p . 1 .
      necessary in order to comply fully with Council                 ( 5 ) OJ No L 330 , 1990 , p . 50.
      Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
      coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
      assurance (') and amending Directives 73/239/EEC ( 2 )
      and     88/357/EEC ( 3 )     ( third non-life   insurance       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial
      directive );                                                    gericht by order of that court of 8 February 1996 in the case
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      of 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez and 2 . Gregorio Gomez
                                                                          Rodriguez v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-113 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/ 16 )
Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
European Community directives are to be binding upon
each Member State to which they are addressed . The                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures                    European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into             ( Federal Social Court ), Thirteenth Chamber, of 8 February
Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such                  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 5 April
measures to the Commission .                                           1996 , in the case of 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez and
                                                                      2 . Gregorio Gomez Rodriguez v. Landesversicherungs
(') OJ No L 228 , 1992 , p . 1 .                                      anstalt ( Regional Insurance Office ) Rheinprovinz, on the
( 2 ) OJ No L 228 , 1973 , p . 3 .                                    following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 172 , 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                       1 . Is Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( )
                                                                             to be as meaning that the provision contained therein on


title: Case C-404/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság, Republic of Hungary) — Criminal proceedings brought by Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Private prosecutor in substitution for the public prosecutor — Testimony of the victim as a witness)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság, Republic of Hungary) — Criminal proceedings brought by Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós
   (Case C-404/07) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Private prosecutor in substitution for the public prosecutor - Testimony of the victim as a witness)
   (2008/C 301/20)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Bíróság
   Parties in the criminal proceedings
   Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — National legislation precluding the possibility of the victim giving evidence in criminal proceedings instituted by the victim as a substitute private prosecutor
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings are to be interpreted as not obliging a national court to permit the victim to be heard as a witness in criminal proceedings instituted by a substitute private prosecution such as that in issue in the main proceedings. However, in the absence of such a possibility, it must be possible for the victim to be permitted to give testimony which can be taken into account as evidence.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-462/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 31 August 2015 — Verners Pudāns

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 31 August 2015 — Verners Pudāns
   (Case C-462/15)
   (2015/C 381/21)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verners Pudāns

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Question referred

   Must Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, be interpreted as allowing, in principle, a Member State to apply income tax to payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.


title: Case T-598/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/29

         Action brought on 28 November 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)
   (Case T-598/11)
   2012/C 32/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 131/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Lean Performance Index’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42.

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive and not descriptive.


title: Case C-568/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze v Data Medical Service Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Articles 1(c) and 37 — Directive 2004/18/EC — First subparagraph of Article 1(8) and Article 55 — Concepts of ‘service provider’ and ‘economic operator’  — Public university hospital — Entity with legal personality and business and organisational autonomy — Principally non-profit-making activity — Institutional purpose of offering health services — Possibility of offering similar services on the market — Admission to participate in a tendering procedure for the award of a public contract)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze v Data Medical Service Srl
   (Case C-568/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 92/50/EEC - Articles 1(c) and 37 - Directive 2004/18/EC - First subparagraph of Article 1(8) and Article 55 - Concepts of ‘service provider’ and ‘economic operator’ - Public university hospital - Entity with legal personality and business and organisational autonomy - Principally non-profit-making activity - Institutional purpose of offering health services - Possibility of offering similar services on the market - Admission to participate in a tendering procedure for the award of a public contract))
   (2015/C 065/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze

      Defendant: Data Medical Service Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 1(c) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts precludes national legislation which excludes a public hospital, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from participation in tendering procedures for the award of public contracts as a result of its status as a public economic entity, if and in so far as that entity is authorised to operate on the market in accordance with its institutional and statutory objectives;

               2)

               The provisions of Directive 92/50, and in particular the general principles of freedom of competition, non-discrimination and proportionality which underlie that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a public hospital, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, participating in a tendering procedure to submit a tender which cannot be matched by any competitors as a result of the public funding which it receives. However, in the course of the examination of the abnormally low character of a tender on the basis of Article 37 of that directive, the contracting authority may take into consideration the existence of public funding which such an entity receives in the light of the option to reject that tender.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case C-379/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc (Freedom of movement for workers — Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU — Social security for migrant workers — Protection of supplementary pension rights — Inaction on the part of the Council — Worker employed successively by the same employer in several Member States)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc
   (Case C-379/09) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU - Social security for migrant workers - Protection of supplementary pension rights - Inaction on the part of the Council - Worker employed successively by the same employer in several Member States)
   2011/C 139/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maurits Casteels

      Defendant: British Airways plc

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 42 EC and of Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 46) — Absence of action on the part of the Council — Employee working successively in the operating units of the same employer in several Member States (otherwise than in the context of postings) and subject on each occasion to the locally applicable supplementary pension scheme

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 48 TFEU does not have any direct effect capable of being relied on by an individual against his private-sector employer in a dispute before national courts.

               2.

               Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of the mandatory application of a collective labour agreement:

                           —

                           for the determination of the period for the acquisition of definitive entitlements to supplementary pension benefits in a Member State, the non-inclusion of the years of service completed by a worker for the same employer in establishments of that employer situated in different Member States and pursuant to the same coordinating contract of employment;

                           —

                           a worker who has been transferred from an establishment of his employer in one Member State to an establishment of the same employer in another Member State from being regarded as having left the employer of his own free will.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-53/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/4

         Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council

   (Case C-53/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Carsten René Beul (represented by: H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 23 November 2015;

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 and, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In the action before the General Court, the appellant sought the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC.
   The appellant is a chartered account in Germany (and also an auditor under the law of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and the Italian Republic). He is authorised to audit public-interest entities. As an accountant, his whole professional activity is supervised by the chamber of accountants, an entity of public law, of which accountants are members and elect the members of its internal bodies.
   Regulation No 537/2014 (‘the Regulation’) provides that, in auditing public-interest entities, auditors are to be supervised by an authority which is independent, that is also free of State influence. In no circumstances may an active member of the accounting profession be part of that authority, and a former accountant only after a lengthy period of inactivity.
   The appellant considers that the Regulation causes prejudice to him. He claims that the Regulation infringes EU law.
   The General Court dismissed the appellant’s action as inadmissible. It found that the appellant did not have standing to bring proceedings to challenge the Regulation. The General Court based its decision on the ground that the appellant was not individually concerned by the Regulation, since he belongs to the class of persons falling within the abstract remit of the Regulation and cannot rely on any individual rights.
   Against the finding of the General Court, the appellant claims that he is directly and individually concerned by the Regulation. In particular, the circle of addressees concerned by the Regulation is open, not least also because, between the enactment of the Regulation and its entry into force, there is a time in which an indefinite number of persons could fall within the circle of members of the profession.
   The General Court failed to recognises this direct and individual concern. In particular, the circle of members of the profession is, at any given point in time, certain by carrying out the supervision provided for in EU law. The existence of a period of time between enactment and entry into force cannot determine whether there is judicial protection.
   Moreover, the appellant submits that, in finding that there is a lack of individual concern, there is a gap in the law. In the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also protects the freedom to choose an occupation, and the European Convention of Human Rights, that gap in the law must be remedied. That falls within the responsibility and purview of the EU judicature, for it has created the situation in which the gap in the law has arisen.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-542/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato
   (Case C-542/12)
   2013/C 63/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Pordenone

      Party to the main proceedings

   Giorgio Fidenato

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the authorisation provided by Article 1(2) of Legislative Decree No 212 of 24 April 2001, within the meaning conferred on it by the national case-law, compatible with the rules in Directive 2001/18/EC (1) or does it conflict with those rules?

               2.

               In particular, where the Member State makes the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) subject to authorisation specifically aimed at protecting the so-called principle of coexistence, is that specific authorisation necessary also for GMOs which are already listed in the common catalogue?

      (1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).


title: Case T-420/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SAZAS v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/42

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SAZAS v Commission
   (Case T-420/08)
   (2008/C 313/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (Sazas) (Trzin, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC) alleging that 24 of CISAC's (1) EEA based societies, including the applicant, engaged in a concerted practice ‘by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society’.
   The main pleas and arguments are similar or identical to those raised in Case T-413/08.

      (1)  Refers to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (‘CISAC’).


title: Case C-564/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen KG (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Articles 3 and 4 — Administrative measures — Recovery of wrongly obtained advantages — Default and compensatory interest due under national law — Application of the limitation rules in Regulation No 2988/95 to the recovery of default interest — Start of the limitation period — Concept of suspension — Concept of interruption)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen KG
   (Case C-564/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Articles 3 and 4 - Administrative measures - Recovery of wrongly obtained advantages - Default and compensatory interest due under national law - Application of the limitation rules in Regulation No 2988/95 to the recovery of default interest - Start of the limitation period - Concept of suspension - Concept of interruption)
   2012/C 151/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Defendant: Pfeifer & Langen KG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Recovery of aid wrongly paid — Applicability of Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 to the limitation period in respect of interest payable under national law in addition to the reimbursement of the sums wrongly paid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period that it lays down for the principal claim, relating to the recovery of an advantage wrongly received from the European Union budget, does not apply to the recovery of interest arising from that claim, where that interest is not due under European Union law, but exclusively under an obligation of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/1

         (2009/C 32/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

   Past publications

      OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

      OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

      OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

      OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

      OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

      OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-10/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grants — Sixth and seventh framework programmes of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) — Letters requesting the repayment of part of the grants awarded — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility — Lack of urgency)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
   (Case T-10/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Grants - Sixth and seventh framework programmes of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) - Letters requesting the repayment of part of the grants awarded - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 191/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, S. Lejeune and M. Sickierzyńska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of, first, two letters from the Commission dated 2 December 2015 informing the applicant that it would proceed with the recovery of a part of the grants that had been awarded to it in the context of the Commission’s sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) and, secondly, a Commission debit note ordering it to pay EUR 1 770 417,29 by 15 January 2016 at the latest.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 18 January 2016 delivered in Case T-10/16 R is cancelled.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-253/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/23

         Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)
   (Case T-253/16)
   (2016/C 287/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Storage Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 446

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2240/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               The words composing the trade mark are not limited to a laudatory meaning as proposed by the Examiner.


title: Case T-239/14: Order of the General Court of 26 August 2015 — Monard v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/58

         Order of the General Court of 26 August 2015 — Monard v Commission
   (Case T-239/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/72)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case C-377/01: Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 317/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Belgium
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                                     (Case C-377/01)
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 14 May 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                                (2001/C 317/42)
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1-63.                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         28 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should declare that:
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                          (Case C-376/01)                                —    by virtue of the failure of the competent Belgian auth-
                                                                              orities, whichever they may be, to adopt the measures
                          (2001/C 317/41)                                     necessary to ensure the transposition of Articles 5(c) and
                                                                              (e) and 6(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) with regard to
                                                                              so-called ‘non-indigenous’ species covered by Directive
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                     79/409/EEC, where the transactions governed by the
Justice of the European Communities on 28 September 2001                      above mentioned provisions of the directive are not
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                    import, export or transit, or if those measures have be on
by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address for                   adopted, by virtue of their failure to communicate them
service in Luxembourg.                                                        to the Commission, and
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                                 —     by virtue of the Federal State’s failure to adopt the
                                                                                provisions necessary to ensure the transposition of
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or                     Articles 5(c) and (e) and 6(1) of Directive
      administrative provisions necessary before 14 May 2000                        79/409/EEC with regard to the import, export and
      to comply with European Parliament and Council Direc-                         transit of so-called ‘non-indigenous’ species covered
      tive 98/8/EC of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing                       by Directive 79/409/EEC, where they are one of the
      of biocidal products on the market (1), or in any event by                    transactions governed by those provisions of the
      failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland                        directive, namely the: keeping of birds and eggs, and
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                    the sale, transport for sale, keeping for sale and the
                                                                                offering for sale of live or dead birds and of any
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                               readily recognisable parts or derivatives of such
                                                                                birds, or, if those measures had been adopted, by
                                                                                virtue of its failure to communicate them to the
                                                                                Commission,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              —     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to                       obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                       2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                       in particular Articles 5(c) and (e) and 6(1) thereof,
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period                       inasmuch as those provisions have not been adopted
expired on 14 May 2000 without Ireland having enacted the                           by the competent Belgian authorities, or its obli-
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to                       gations under Article 18, inasmuch as those pro-
in the conclusions of the Commission.                                               visions, even if adopted, have not been communi-
                                                                                cated to the Commission by the competent Belgian
                                                                                authorities;
(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1-63.
                                                                         —    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
The Commission submits that the provisions of Articles 5(c)                    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply equally to live or dead                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
birds and to readily recognisable parts or derivatives of birds                Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of
and to their eggs which a person keeps on the territory of the                 the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
legislating Member State and which have been killed, captured                  87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
or otherwise acquired, or of which that person has obtained                    lations and administrative provisions of the Member
possession by any other means in a Member State other than                     States concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by
the legislating Member State, subject to Articles 1 and 9 as                   failing to communicate such provisions to the Com-
regards the prohibition on keeping refered to in Article 5(c)                  mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
and (e), and subject to Article 6(2) as regards the acts referred              obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
to in Article 6(1) of the directive. Consequently, Articles 5(c)         2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply to species and subspecies
of birds naturally occurring in the wild state in the European
territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies,              Pleas in law and main arguments
even though not naturally occurring in the wild state in
Belgium, and also to subspecies of birds naturally occurring in          According to Article 2(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of
the wild state only outside the European territory of the                Spain was to have brought into force the provisions necessary
Member States where the species to which they belong or                  to comply with it no later than 21 April 2001 and inform the
other subspecies of that species occur naturally in the wild             Commission immediately thereof.
state in the territory in question.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.
The period for transposing the directive expired on 16 April
1981.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 Removal from the register of Case C-412/00 (1)
    vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1).
                                                                                (2001/C 317/44)
                                                                         By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-412/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission                       (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                          (Case C-386/01)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-414/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/45)
                          (2001/C 317/43)
                                                                         By order of 10 September 2001 the President of the Fourth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 Octo-              has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-414/00:
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese
represented by I. Martı́nez del Peral, acting as Agent, with an          Republic.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of L. Escobar,
Wagner Centre C 254.                                                     (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.


title: Case T-855/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Fertisac v ECHA (Interim proceedings — REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized undertakings — Decision imposing an administrative charge and a supplementary fee — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/47

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Fertisac v ECHA
   (Case T-855/16 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized undertakings - Decision imposing an administrative charge and a supplementary fee - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
   (2017/C 144/65)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fertisac, SL (Atarfe, Spain) (represented by: J. Gomez Rodriguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, Agents, and C. Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking a suspension of operation of Decision SME (2016) 5150, of 15 November 2016, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the fee reductions applicable to medium-sized undertakings, and of the invoices issued on the basis of that decision, namely ECHA invoices No 10060160 and No 10060161, dated 15 November 2016.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-413/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corporation of America v Commission of the European Communities Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, an international association), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV (Appeals — Competition — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Sony BMG joint venture — Appeal against the annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Judicial review — Scope — Standard of proof — Role of the statement of objections — Strengthening or creation of a collective dominant position — Statement of reasons for a decision approving a concentration — Use of confidential information)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corporation of America v Commission of the European Communities Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, an international association), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV
   (Case C-413/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Sony BMG joint venture - Appeal against the annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Judicial review - Scope - Standard of proof - Role of the statement of objections - Strengthening or creation of a collective dominant position - Statement of reasons for a decision approving a concentration - Use of confidential information)
   (2008/C 223/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Bertelsmann AG (represented by: P. Chappatte and J. Boyce, Solicitors), Sony Corporation of America (represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders, avocat, and T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) (represented by: S. Crosby and J. Golding, Solicitors, and by I. Wekstein, Advocate), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, Agent and K. Mojzesowicz, Agent), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV, (represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders, avocat, and T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission by which that Court annulled the Commission's Decision of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration that creates a joint venture combining the activities of Sony and Bertelsmann in the recorded music sector to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-900/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/12

         Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)
   (Case T-900/16)
   (2017/C 095/21)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dayaday’ — Application for registration No 13 243 563

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal adopted on 6 October 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2 dismissing in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015;

               —

               dismiss the application for registration of the EU trademark No 13 243 563 filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal for all the goods in Class 9 and the portion of the goods in Classes 16 and 24 in respect of which the Second Board of Appeal has dismissed the appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the contested decision, pursuant to Article 8(5) (EUTMR), in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24 and refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for review in its entirety in respect of the relative ground referred to in the abovementioned article;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 May 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Fritz Trennheuser, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales (Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Public health — Pharmacies — Provisions restricting the right to operate a pharmacy to pharmacists alone — Justification — Reliability and quality of the provision of medicinal products to the public — Professional independence of pharmacists)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 May 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Fritz Trennheuser, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales
   (Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Public health - Pharmacies - Provisions restricting the right to operate a pharmacy to pharmacists alone - Justification - Reliability and quality of the provision of medicinal products to the public - Professional independence of pharmacists)
   2009/C 153/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Fritz Trennheuser, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07)

      Defendants: Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales

      Joined party: DocMorris NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 43 EC and 48 EC — Authorisation to operate pharmacies restricted, under national legislation, to pharmacists who personally manage the pharmacy — Authorisation given by the national authorities to a legal person in view of the direct effect of Community law — Conditions under which national law should be disapplied

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main actions, which prevents persons not having the status of pharmacist from owning and operating pharmacies.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-200/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

         Action brought on 28 May 2004 by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-200/04)
   (2004/C 217/45)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Domenico Dodaro, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare invalid that part of Commission Decision C(2004) 471of 16 March 2004 holding aid granted by Italy through Article 5 of Law No 22 of the Region of Sardinia of 17 November 2000 to be incompatible with the common market;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the contested decision, the Commission initiated the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty declaring that aid granted by Article 5 of Regional Law 22/2000, providing for ‘interventions in favour of breeders to confront the epizootic disease of blue tongue’, was incompatible with the common market. That law provided for a series of interventions in favour of breeders who had suffered the negative effects of blue tongue.
   In support of its claims the applicant pleads the following grounds:

               —

               infringement of essential procedural requirements: The Commission's preliminary investigations for assessing the compatibility of the aid were insufficient in that they did not take account of information available in the notification report and subsequently supplemented by the Region of Sardinia, and in particular of the following circumstances:

                           —

                           the aid is not intended for processing undertakings but is a necessary additional compensation for producers' loss of income resulting from higher fixed costs of Cooperatives when distributing net proceeds;

                           —

                           the causal relationship between the epizootic disease and the reduction in grants cannot be proven in abstract terms but is dependent on the practical implementation of the aid rules, which are structured in such a way as to exclude the allocation of aid on grounds other than those dependent on blue tongue. The hypothetical grounds referred to for the reduction in grants are insufficient and are contrary to facts known to the European Commission.

                           —

                           the cooperatives receiving the aid do not have any flexibility to access alternative sources of supply.

               —

               infringement of the provisions of the EC Treaty and the principles of law relating to its application, in so far as:

                           —

                           the Commission infringed the principle of effectiveness by excluding the application of Article 87(2)(b), partly because that provision was not invoked by the Italian authorities. In accordance with that principle, the applicant argues, the Commission should have given sufficient reasons for not applying it, the Italian authorities' failure to invoke it being insufficient.

                           —

                           the Commission infringed Article 87(3)(c) by overlooking the fact that the measure now alleged to be incompatible with the common market is identical with the measures approved by the Commission in Decision SG(01) D/285817 of 2 February 2001, concerning Article 3 of Regional Law 22/2000.


title: Case T-287/04: Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, and Unaproliva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva against Council of the European Union

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/17

         Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, and Unaproliva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva against Council of the European Union
   (Case T-287/04)
   (2004/C 284/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada, having its registered office in Estepa, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, having its registered office in Sevilla and Unaproliva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva, having its registered office in Jaén (all in Spain), represented by Rafael Illescas Ortiz, of the Madrid Bar.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulations (EC) Nos 864/2004 and 865/2004 of 29 April 2004; in particular, as regards Regulation No 864/2004, the Court should annul the following provisions:

                           i.

                           Article 1(7) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph in Article 37(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003;

                           ii.

                           Article 1(11) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph to paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270);

                           iii.

                           Article 1(20) insofar as, when inserting a new Chapter 10b – ‘Aid for olive groves’– into Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) it adds a new Article 110h and, in particular, Article 1(20)(b) of the abovementioned Article 110h;

                           iv.

                           the annex, insofar as it amends Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) adding four new rows and, in particular, the second such new row concerning olive oil insofar as it refers to Article 5 of Regulation 136/66/CEE – Aid for olive oil production – which provides for a national guaranteed amount (NGA) for Spain of 760 027 tons;

               —

               as regards Regulation 865/2004 the Court should annul the following provision:

                           —

                           Article 22 insofar as it repeals Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1638/98 so far as concerns, exclusively, the second and third subparagraphs thereof and only to the extent that they amount to fundamental criteria for fixing the aid for income of oil producers under the new scheme based on Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants claim that the contested regulations entail the introduction into the common agricultural policy of a new aid scheme for olive oil and table olive producers as well as a new common organisation of the markets in such products, derogating from, inter alia, the long-established Regulation No 136/66/EEC of the Council of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats. Unlike the longstanding mechanism for aid for production, the new system established by the contested regulations removes direct aid to producers and introduces a system of single payments, which means, for the olive oil sector, from 2006, a move from a policy of supporting prices and production to a new policy of support for the income of olive producers.
   The applicants take the view that the abovementioned reform is not based on proper information and sectorial analysis, as indicated by the maintenance of the 760 027 tons of olive oil as, previously, a national guaranteed amount (NGA) and now, under the new aid scheme, as a basic reference for the quantification of the new aid which replaces the aid to production which has been repealed.
   In support of their claims, the applicants allege:

               —

               breach of the principle of legal expectations. The applicants state, first, that the affected producers were particularly disappointed in the expectations created by the common organisation of the market which has now been reformed inasmuch as those affected are oil producers which, in view of the circumstances in the sector, made decisions regarding investment decisions in respect of very long-term income forecasts and, furthermore, that the reference marketing years for the new aid (from 1999/2000 to 2002/2003) happen to be periods in which oil producers who planted a crop in 1998 do not have a significant harvest.

               —

               misuse of powers. Reliance is placed, in particular, in that regard, on the existence of an undertaking obtained by the Commission and the Council in 1998, and again in 2001, concerning the obtention by them of reliable information on the olive oil sector as a condition prior to its reform, as well as the essential need to take into account developments in production and the future of olive-growing in Spain and Portugal. None the less, according to the applicants, reliable information regarding oil production in Spain could already have been provided by the Commission itself to the International Oil Council, so that neither the Commission nor the Council could have been unaware of it.

               —

               failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons, enshrined in Article 253 of the EC Treaty.

               —

               breach of the principle of non-discrimination of Community producers, as laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-407/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Civil service — Promotion — Award of priority points)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission
   (Case T-407/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Civil service - Promotion - Award of priority points)
   (2008/C 313/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Benedicta Miguelez Herreras (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by M. van der Woude and V. Landes, then M. van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by H. Tserepa-Lacombe and V. Joris, then V. Joris and G. Berscheid, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of:

               —

               the decision of the Director General of the Commission Legal Service to award the applicant 2 directorate general priority points under the 2003 promotion exercise, notified on 2 July 2003 and confirmed by a decision of the AIPN notified on 16 December 2003;

               —

               the following decisions: decision of the AIPN to award the applicant a total of 23 points under the 2003 promotion exercise; the merit list of Grade C2 officials under the 2003 promotion exercise; the list of officials promoted to Grade C1 under the 2003 promotion exercise, published in Administrative Notice No 76-2003 of 3 December 2003; in any event, the decision not to include the applicant's name on those lists;

               —

               in so far as necessary, the decision of the AIPN of 17 June 2004 dismissing the complaint brought by the applicant on 24 February 2004;

               —

               the decision of the AIPN of 17 April 2007 not to award the applicant any supplementary priority points under the 2003 promotion exercise;

         and a declaration that all the decisions taken in the 2003 promotion exercise challenged in this action and not replaced in 2007 are non-existent, and in particular the merit list for officials in Grade C2 under the 2003 promotion exercise, published in Administrative Notice No 71-2003 of 25 November 2003 and the list of officials promoted to Grade C1 under the 2003 promotion exercise published in Administrative Notice No 76-2003 of 3 December 2003 and seeking compensation of EUR 5 000.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decisions setting the applicant's total number of promotion points at 23 points and refusing to include her on the list of officials promoted to Grade C1 under the 2003 promotion exercise.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case F-60/10: Action brought on 22 July 2010 — Chiavegato v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/28

         Action brought on 22 July 2010 — Chiavegato v Commission
   (Case F-60/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fulvia Chiavegato (Bettembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2009 promotion procedure and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2009 promotion procedure adopted by the Appointing Authority on 13 November 2009 in so far as that list does not contain the applicant’s name and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/41

         Removal from the Register of Case T-324/04 R
   (2005/C 57/71)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 15 December 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-324/04 R, F v Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case C-486/04: Action brought on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/9

         Action brought on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-486/04)
   (2005/C 31/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Van Beek, F. Louis and A. Capobianco, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC (2):

                           1.

                           by not subjecting the Massafra WDF and biomass incineration plant project, which is a plant included in Annex I to the Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC, to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended;

                           2.

                           by not adopting legislation (Article 3(1)(i) and (l) of the DPCM (Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers) of 3 September 1999 amending Annex A to the DPR (Decree of the President of the Republic) of 12 April 1996) which excludes from the environmental impact assessment procedure any projects falling within Annex I to Directive 85/337/EEC as amended (projects for installations for the recovery of hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day) if subject to the simplified authorisation procedure within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 75/442/EEC, and

                           3.

                           by adopting legislation (Article 3(1)(i) and (l) of the DPCM of 3 September 1999 amending Annex A to the DPR of 12 April 1996) which, for the purposes of establishing whether or not a project falling within Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended must be the subject of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), sets an inadequate test in that projects which have a significant impact on the environment can be excluded from an EIA;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Commission submits that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC for the reasons set out in its application.

      (1)  OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ L 73 of 14.3.1997, p. 5.


title: Case C-601/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2008/115/EC — Lawful residence — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 9 — Right to remain in a Member State — Directive 2013/33/EU — Point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) — Detention — Protection of national security or public order — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 52 — Limitation — Proportionality)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/13

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-601/15 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2008/115/EC - Lawful residence - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State - Directive 2013/33/EU - Point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) - Detention - Protection of national security or public order - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Limitation - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 145/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: J. N.

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge, Afdeling Oostende, by judgment of that court of 22 December 1997 in the case of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Case C-442/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/21
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de
                                                                   Cassation, by judgment of that court of 9 December 1997,
1. set aside the judgment delivered on 15 October 1997             in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde, Uni Europe, La
    by the Court of First Instance of the European                 PreÂservatrice FoncieÁre IARD, La Baloise, ReÂunion
    Communities in Case T-331/94 (1) and annul the                 EuropeÂenne, Allianz, British and Foreign Marine
    respondent's decision of 3 August 1994 refusing                Insurance Co. Ltd and Camat against the Master of the
    payment of the second instalment of the aid granted to         vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan', P. T. Perusahan Pelayaran
    the applicant by letter of 4 August 1992,                      Trikoria Lloyd', Pro Ligne Ltd, Sveriges Angarts Assurans
                                                                        Forening, Somaba and Agence maritime Borghans
2. alternatively:                                                                        (Case C-440/97)
    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                  (98/C 55/40)
    referred to in (1) above and refer the case back to the
    Court of First Instance,
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3. order the respondent to pay the costs.
                                                                   European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour
                                                                   de Cassation of 9 December 1997, which was received at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   the Court Registry on 29 December 1997, for a
                                                                   preliminary ruling in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde
Ð Complaints regarding procedural matters
                                                                   and Others v. The Master of the vessel Suhadiwarno
    Ð failure to comply with the obligation imposed by             Panjan' and Others, on the following question:
        Article 190 of the EC Treaty to provide a
        statement of reasons,
                                                                   With a view to the application of Article 5(1) of the
    Ð breach of the duty to investigate the matter and             Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
        infringement of the rules concerning the burden of         and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
        proof and the degree of proof.                             matters, must the place where the obligation at issue was
                                                                   or must be fulfilled, within the meaning of that provision,
Ð Infringements of substantive Community law                       be determined in accordance with the law which governs
                                                                   the obligation at issue or should national courts determine
    Ð the contested judgment is based on a presumption             the place of performance of the obligation by seeking to
        of fact which, as is apparent from the documents           establish, having regard to the nature of the relationship
        in the case, is incorrect,                                 creating the obligation and the circumstances of the case,
                                                                   the place where performance actually took place or should
    Ð in upholding a deadline for submission of the final
                                                                   have taken place, without having to refer to the law
        report which did not reflect the delay caused by
                                                                   which, under the rules on conflict of laws, governs the
        the Commission to the commencement of the
                                                                   obligation at issue?
        project, the Court of First Instance failed to
        observe the principle patere legem quam ipse
        fecisti and disregarded the prohibition of acts
        constituting an abuse of law,
    Ð breach of the prohibition imposed by the principle
        venire contra factum proprium, alternatively of the
        principle of estoppel: the Court of First Instance         Reference      for   a    preliminary    ruling   by    the
        wrongly assessed as irrelevant in law statements           Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge, Afdeling Oostende, by
        made by the official then responsible for the              judgment of that court of 22 December 1997 in the case
        matter in the course of discussions with the                    of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
        applicant, despite the fact that those statements
                                                                                (Case C-442/97)
        were reflected in the minutes prepared by the
        Commission,                                                                        (98/C 55/41)
    Ð breach of the principle of proportionality: the
        Court of First Instance failed to give sufficient
        weight to the disparity between the gravity of the         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        alleged infringement and the conditions laid down          European       Communities      by    judgment     of   the
        in the Decision granting the aid and between the           Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge (Labour Court, Bruges), Ostend
        circumstances of the case (illegal intervention by         Division, of 22 December 1997, which was received at the
        the Commission and unlawful shortening of the              Court Registry on 30 December 1997, for a preliminary
        period for completion of the project) and the              ruling in the case of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor
        penalty imposed by the Commission, namely non-             Pensioenen (National Pensions Office) on the following
        payment of 40 % of the total amount of the aid.            question:
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 14.
                                                                   Article 32b(5) of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967
                                                                   laying down general rules concerning retirement and
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.98
survivor's pensions for workers provides as follows: A                 Removal from the register of Case C-169/97 (1)
worker who was employed as a worker during the period                                      (98/C 55/43)
between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945 and in
respect of whom a contribution was paid of an amount              By order of 18 September 1997 the President of the Court
equivalent to the annual amount referred to in                    of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
paragraph 2, is deemed to have paid sufficient                    removal from the register of Case C-169/97: Commission
contributions to establish that he was normally and               of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
principally employed during the entire period comprised
between the date on which the period of employment                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
established came to an end and 1 January 1946.'
Article 32b(6) of the aforesaid Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 provides as follows: The presumption
laid down in the two aforesaid paragraphs is rebuttable
only in respect of periods for which the person concerned               Removal from the register of Case C-193/96 (1)
can claim a pension under another Belgian scheme, with                                     (98/C 55/44)
the exception of the scheme for self-employed workers, or
under the scheme of a foreign country.'                           By order of 25 September 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Is a provision such as Article 32b(6) of the Royal Decree         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of 21 December 1967 a provision on reduction,                     Case C-193/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a        the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Richard Buchen GmbH v.
Member State, as referred to in Article 46b(2) of                 Bezirksregierung Köln.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which does not apply to a
benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i)?        (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (1)
                         (98/C 55/42)                                                      (98/C 55/45)
By order of 12 September 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the            of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (reference for         removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                    a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo): ICT Ð InduÂstria e ComeÂrcio TeÃxtil SA v.       Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)): Fazenda
Fazenda PuÂblica.                                                 PuÂblica v. AssociacËaÄo Nacional de Transportes PuÂblicos
                                                                  RodoviaÂrios de Mercadorias (Antram) in the presence of
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                          MinisteÂrio PuÂblico.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.


title: Case F-131/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Dun v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal by the AECE concerning the crediting of pensionable years not immediately accepted by the person concerned — New proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years based on new general implementing provisions — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Dun v Commission
   (Case F-131/11) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal by the AECE concerning the crediting of pensionable years not immediately accepted by the person concerned - New proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years based on new general implementing provisions - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 222/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Dun (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision, made on the basis of the PMO’s recalculated proposal, to transfer the applicant’s pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Peter Dun shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 23.


title: Case T-88/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-88/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/106)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.