title: Case T-193/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/50

         Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling v Commission
   (Case T-193/13)
   2013/C 156/92
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV (Hoevelaken, Netherlands) and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV (Leidschendam, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants challenge Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental requirement that the Commission exercise its powers within a reasonable period of time, and thus breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               By allowing around 38 months to elapse between its becoming aware of the measures at issue and adoption of the contested decision, the Commission wrongfully acted in a dilatory manner and one that was thus contrary to the fundamental requirement that it should act within a reasonable period of time. In addition, as a result of the excessively long investigation period, it was more difficult for the applicants to counter the Commission’s arguments, the Commission having, by its conduct, thereby also breached the rights of the defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging serious deficiencies in the determination and assessment of the relevant facts and/or breach of the obligation to state reasons and/or infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU by the Commission’s incorrect application of the private investor principle
               Overall, the applicants did not obtain a financial benefit, let alone any financial benefit that might be regarded as unlawful State aid.
               The Commission miscalculated the amount of the alleged benefit in that it, inter alia, attributed 100 % of the agreed price reductions to the Municipality, whereas the price reduction was borne by a public private partnership in which the Municipality bore 50 % of the risk. The Commission also disregarded earlier price reductions agreed within that partnership, without giving reasons for doing so.
               Furthermore, the Commission incorrectly applied the private investor principle in the contested decision by assessing the Municipality’s conduct by reference to the — legally not practicable and in any event financially exceedingly unfavourable — hypothetical conduct of a notional private investor.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 107(3) TFEU
               If it is determined that there is State aid, such aid is in any case fully compatible with the internal market. The Commission wrongly took the view that the Municipality was unable to demonstrate that the measures at issue had any common interest objective. In so doing it wrongly assessed the 2009/2010 measures at issue against the background of the (more favourable) market situation prevailing in 2004.
               The Commission thereby failed to appreciate that the measures at issue were necessary for, and appropriate and proportionate to the revitalisation of the run-down town centre of Leidschendam, an objective which chimes with the clearly described and recognised EU objective of economic and social cohesion within the meaning of Article 3 TEU and Article 174 TFEU. There can be no question of any undue distortion of competition.


title: Case C-359/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — National of a Member State — Residence in another Member State — Studies pursued in an overseas country or territory — Maintenance of the grant of funding for higher education — ‘Three-out-of-six-years’ residence rule — Restriction — Justification)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
   (Case C-359/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - National of a Member State - Residence in another Member State - Studies pursued in an overseas country or territory - Maintenance of the grant of funding for higher education - ‘Three-out-of-six-years’ residence rule - Restriction - Justification))
   (2015/C 138/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: B. Martens

      Respondent: Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that State subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding has resided in that Member State for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-352/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/25

         Action brought on 21 May 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)
   (Case T-352/14)
   2014/C 245/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant): The Smiley Company SPRL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: I. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Swatch Group Management Services AG (Biel, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1497/2013-1;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition by amendment of the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HAPPY TIME’ for goods and services in Classes 14 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06  813

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Swatch Group Management Services AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration protected with effect in the European Union of the word mark ‘HAPPY HOURS’ for services in Classes 35 and 37

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-420/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/25

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH
      (Case C-420/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/43)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Söll GmbH

         Defendant: Tetra GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  For a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC (1), must that product itself destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on the harmful organism directly by chemical or biological means, or is it sufficient that the product have an indirect effect on that harmful organism?

                  2.

                  If, for a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, the Court of Justice deems that an indirect chemical or biological effect on the harmful organism is sufficient, what is required of the product’s indirect effect on the harmful organism in order to be able to classify such a product as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, or is an indirect effect of any nature sufficient to establish a product’s biocidal quality?

         (1)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1).


title: Case T-465/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — New aid)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission
   (Case T-465/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))
   (2016/C 027/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: initially J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, then J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Reverter Baquer and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, and finally J. Buendía Sierra, M. Reverter Baquer and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case F-58/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2016 — DE v EMA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Material change in the nature of the duties performed by the staff member — Interruption of the career path — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Excluded)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2016 — DE v EMA
   (Case F-58/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff member - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Material change in the nature of the duties performed by the staff member - Interruption of the career path - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Excluded))
   (2016/C 111/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented initially by S. Marino, T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers, and subsequently by S. Marino, T. Jabłoński, F. Cooney and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract, and a claim for compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders DE to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014, p. 63.


title: Case F-100/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 Michail v Commission (Civil service — Official — Res judicata — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 Michail v Commission
   (Case F-100/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Official - Res judicata - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment)
   2011/C 362/35
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, and by E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypa, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject the request for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in respect of the psychological harassment which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Michail to bear his own costs and those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010, p. 52.


title: Case C-210/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH v Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH v Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein
   (Case C-210/16)
   (2016/C 260/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein

      Applicant and respondent: Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH

      Joined party: Facebook Ireland Limited

      Intervener: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) to be interpreted as definitively and exhaustively defining the liability and responsibility for data protection violations, or does scope remain, under the ‘suitable measures’ pursuant to Article 24 of Directive 95/46/EC and the ‘effective powers of intervention’ pursuant to the second indent of Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC, in multi-tiered information provider relationships for responsibility of a body that does not control the data processing within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC when it chooses the operator of its information offering?

               2.

               Does it follow a contrario from the obligation of Member States under Article 17(2) of Directive 95/46/EC to stipulate, in cases where data processing is carried out on the controller’s behalf, that the controller ‘must … choose a processor providing sufficient guarantees in respect of the technical security measures and organizational measures governing the processing to be carried out’, that, where there are other user relationships not linked to data processing on the controller’s behalf within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 95/46/EC, there is no obligation to make a careful choice and no such an obligation can be derived from national law?

               3.

               In cases in which a parent company based outside the European Union has legally independent establishments (subsidiaries) in various Member States, is the supervisory authority of a Member State (in this case, Germany) entitled under Article 4 and Article 28(6) of Directive 95/46/EC to exercise the powers conferred under Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC against the establishment located in its territory even when this establishment is solely responsible for promoting the sale of advertising and other marketing measures aimed at the inhabitants of this Member State, whereas the independent establishment (subsidiary) located in another Member State (in this case, Ireland) is exclusively responsible within the group’s internal division of tasks for collecting and processing personal data throughout the entire territory of the European Union and hence in the other Member State as well (in this case, Germany), if decisions about data processing are in fact taken by the parent company?

               4.

               Are Article 4(1)(a) and Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases in which the controller has an establishment in the territory of one Member State (in this case, Ireland) and there is another, legally independent establishment in the territory of another Member State (in this case, Germany), whose responsibilities include the sale of advertising space and whose activity is aimed at the inhabitants of that State, the competent supervisory authority in this other Member State (in this case, Germany) may direct measures and orders implementing data protection legislation also against the other establishment (in this case, in Germany) not responsible for data processing under the group’s internal division of tasks and responsibilities, or are measures and orders only possible by the supervisory body of the Member State (in this case, Ireland) in whose territory the entity with internal responsibility within the group has its registered office?

               5.

               Are Article 4(1)(a) and Article 28(3) and (6) of Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases in which the supervisory authority in one Member State (in this case, Germany) takes action against a person or entity in its territory pursuant to Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC on the grounds of failing to exercise due care in choosing a third party involved in the data processing process (in this case, Facebook), because this third party is in violation of data protection legislation, the active supervisory authority (in this case, Germany) is bound by the appraisal of data protection legislation by the supervisory authority of the Member State in which the third party responsible for the data processing has its establishment (in this case, Ireland) meaning that it may not arrive at a different legal appraisal, or may the active supervisory authority (in this case, Germany) conduct its own examination of the lawfulness of the data processing by the third party established in another Member State (in this case, Ireland) as a preliminary question prior to its own action?

               6.

               Where the possibility of conducting an independent examination is available to the active supervisory authority (in this case, Germany), is the second sentence of Article 28(6) of Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that this supervisory authority may exercise the effective powers of intervention conferred on it under Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC against a person or entity established in its territory on the grounds of their joint responsibility for data protection violations by a third party established in another Member State only and not until it has first requested the supervisory authority in this other Member State (in this case, Ireland) to exercise its powers?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case T-132/07: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Fuji Electric v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing — Proof of the infringement — Whether liable for the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Fuji Electric v Commission
   (Case T-132/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing - Proof of the infringement - Whether liable for the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2011/C 252/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fuji Electric (previously Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd and successor in title to Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd) (Kawasaki, Japan) (represented by P. Chappatte and P. Walter, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault, and subsequently X. Lewis, J. Bourke and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, and then N. Khan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) and reduction of the fine imposed on Fuji Electric Holdings and Fuji Electric Systems

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(h) and Article 2(d) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) to the extent that they find or rely on the finding that Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, the successor in title to which is Fuji Electric Co. Ltd, can be held personally liable for the infringement from September 2000 until 30 June 2001;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Fuji Electric, formerly named Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd and the successor in title to Fuji Electric Systems, in Article 2(d) of Decision C(2006) 6762 final at EUR 2 200 000;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Fuji Electric and to bear one quarter of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Fuji Electric to bear three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-17/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH v Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia (Maritime transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Concept of ‘maritime cabotage’  — Cruise services — Cruise crossing the Venetian lagoon, Italian territorial sea and the river Po — Departure from and arrival at the same port)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH v Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia
   (Case C-17/13) (1)

   ((Maritime transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Concept of ‘maritime cabotage’ - Cruise services - Cruise crossing the Venetian lagoon, Italian territorial sea and the river Po - Departure from and arrival at the same port))
   2014/C 151/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH

      Defendant: Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — Scope — Concept of maritime cabotage — Cruise service — Departure and arrival of passengers in one and the same port after calling at other ports

      Operative part of the judgment

   A maritime transport service consisting of a cruise which starts and ends, with the same passengers, in the same port of the Member State in which it takes place, is covered by the term ‘maritime cabotage’ within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case F-137/07: Action brought on 4 December 2007 — Sergio and Others v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/37

         Action brought on 4 December 2007 — Sergio and Others v Commission
   (Case F-137/07)
   (2008/C 79/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Giovanni Sergio and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the ‘Protocol of Agreement between the trade union or professional organisations and the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration (DG ADMIN)’ and the decisions of the Appointing Authority confirmed by the Protocol of 19 December 2006 and the decision of 14 November 2006 — Claim for damages in the form of a symbolic EUR 1.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the ‘Protocol of Agreement between the trade union or professional organisations and the DG ADMIN concerning the allocation of resources for the representation of the staff for 2006’ sent to the secretary of l'Alliance and to the presidents of the Union Syndicale Fédérale (USF) and of the Fédération de la fonction publique européenne (FFPE) by note of 19 December 2006 from the Director General of Personnel and Administration;

               —

               Annul the individual release from service decisions adopted in favour of the representatives of l'Alliance and/or of the FFPE on the basis of that Protocol or of the calculation of 26 May 2006 of the representation of the trade union or professional organisations on the basis of the results of the elections of May 2006 of the Brussels local section and confirmed by the Protocol of 19 December 2006;

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 November 2006 of the Director General of Personnel and Administration putting an end to the detachment on half-time of Mr Marquez-Garcia and reinstating him full-time in his department;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to each of the applicants a symbolic EUR 1 as compensation for the non-material and political harm suffered as representatives of the Union Syndicale and the non-material harm suffered and harm caused to their careers as officials or agents;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-272/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in 1. …, 2. … and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in 1. …, 2. … and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria
   (Case C-272/05)
   (2005/C 217/57)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. …, 2. … and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria on the following question:

               1.

               ‘Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, are deemed to be the “same acts”, as referred to in Article 54 of that Convention?’


title: Case C-381/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor — Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose — Reference to designations of origin)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA
   (Case C-381/05) (1)

   (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Comparative advertising - Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor - Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose - Reference to designations of origin)
   (2007/C 96/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA

      Respondents: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal) — Interpretation of Article 2(2a) and Article 3a(b) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising — Identification of a competitor or of the goods or services offered by a competitor — Use for advertising a beer of terms referring to characteristics of sparkling wines and, more specifically, Champagne
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(2a) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning that a reference in an advertisement to a type of product and not to a specific undertaking or product can be considered to be comparative advertising where it is possible to identify that undertaking or the goods that it offers as being actually referred to by the advertisement. The fact that a number of the advertiser's competitors or the goods or services that they offer may be identified as being in fact referred to by the advertisement is of no relevance for the purpose of recognising the comparative nature of the advertising.

               2.

               The existence of a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the advertisement cannot be established independently of the goods or services offered by that undertaking.
               In order to determine whether there is a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the advertisement, it is necessary to consider:

                           —

                           the current state of the market and consumer habits and how they might evolve,

                           —

                           the part of the Community territory in which the advertising is disseminated, without, however, excluding, where appropriate, the effects which the evolution of consumer habits seen in other Member States may have on the national market at issue, and

                           —

                           the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser seeks to promote and the image which it wishes to impart to it.

                     The criteria for establishing the existence of a competitive relationship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, are not identical to those for determining whether the comparison fulfils the condition in Article 3a(1)(b) of the same directive.

               3.

               Advertising which refers to a type of product without thereby identifying a competitor or the goods which it offers is not impermissible with regard to Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55. The conditions governing whether such advertising is permissible must be assessed in the light of other provisions of national law or, where appropriate, of Community law, irrespective of the fact that that could mean a lower level of protection for consumers or competing undertakings.

               4.

               Article 3a(1)(f) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that, for products without designation of origin, any comparison which relates to products with designation of origin is not impermissible.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf and the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (Germany, France)) — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG, formerly Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Sugar — Production levies — Detailed rules for the application of the quota system — Calculation of the exportable surplus — Calculation of the average loss)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf and the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (Germany, France)) — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG, formerly Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06) (1)

   (Sugar - Production levies - Detailed rules for the application of the quota system - Calculation of the exportable surplus - Calculation of the average loss)
   (2008/C 158/03)
   Language of the case: German and French
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG, formerly Jülich AG (C-5/06), Saint Louis Sucre SNC (C-23/06), Sucreries du Marquenterre SA (C-24/06), SA des Sucreries de Fontaine Le Dun, Bolbec, Auffray (SAFBA) (C-25/06), SA Lesaffre Frères (C-26/06), Tereos, as successor in title to Sucreries, Distilleries des Hauts de France (C-27/06), SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré fils (C-28/06), SA Sucreries de Toury et Usines Annexes (C-29/06), Tereos (C-30/06), Tereos, as successor in title to SAS Sucrerie du Littoral Groupe SDHF (C-31/06), Cristal Union (C-32/06), Sucrerie Bourdon (C-33/06), SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne (C-34/06), SAS Vermendoise Industries (C-35/06), SA Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein (C-36/06)

      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Aachen (C-5/06), Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers (C-23/06 to C-36/06)
   Re:
   Preliminary rulings — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1) — Validity of Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003 of 27 June 2003 amending, in the sugar sector, Regulations (EC) No 779/96 laying down detailed rules of application as regards communications and (EC) No 314/2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 33) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year (OJ 2004 L 316, p. 64) — Whether account is to be taken, in determining the exportable surplus, of all exported quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup and, in determining the average loss per tonne of sugar, only of the quantities in respect of which export refunds were paid
   Operative part of the judgment
   Pursuant to Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, for the purpose of calculating the exportable surplus, all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be subtracted from consumption.
   Article 15(1)(d) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating both the exportable surplus and the average loss per tonne of product.
   Commission Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year and (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year are invalid.
   Examination of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect its validity.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-91/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — AEDEC v Commission (Technological research and development — ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation — Calls for proposals in respect of work programmes 2014-2015 — Commission decision declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Openness — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — AEDEC v Commission
   (Case T-91/15) (1)

   ((Technological research and development - ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation - Calls for proposals in respect of work programmes 2014-2015 - Commission decision declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Openness - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 402/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación Española para el Desarrollo de la Epidemiología Clínica (AEDEC) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. López López, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Ruiz García and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of 4 September 2014 in which the Commission rejected the request for financing submitted by the applicant on behalf of the consortium Latin Plan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Asociación Española para el Desarrollo de la Epidemiología Clínica (AEDEC) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-176/12: Action brought on 16 April 2012 — Bank Tejarat v Council

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/25

         Action brought on 16 April 2012 — Bank Tejarat v Council
   (Case T-176/12)
   2012/C 174/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 2 of table I.B. of Annex I to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 19, p. 22), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 2 of table I.B. of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 19, p. 1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 105 of table B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, p. 1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 20(1) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare that the annulment of paragraph 2 of table I.B. of Annex I to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 and paragraph 105 of table B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 has immediate effects; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the substantive criteria for designation under the contested measures are not met in the applicant’s case and there is no legal or factual basis for its designation; and/or that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria had been met; and

                           —

                           that the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria had been met and thereby committed a (further) manifest error of assessment, since the applicant does not satisfy any of the five criteria for designation provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012; and that the Council has provided no evidence as to the contrary.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the designation of the applicant is in violation of its fundamental rights and freedoms, including its right to trade and carry out its business activities and to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to notify the applicant individually of its designation, (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons and (c) to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial remedies.


title: Case C-114/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 7 March 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v U. Notermans-Boddenberg

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 7 March 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v U. Notermans-Boddenberg
   (Case C-114/11)
   2011/C 152/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: U. Notermans-Boddenberg

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) or of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU), does Community law govern a situation in which a Member State subjects a resident of that Member State, on the basis of commencement of use by that person’s car of the road network in the territory of that Member State, to a tax in a case where:

               —

               that car is registered in another Member State,

               —

               that car formed part of the movable property imported on transfer of residence by that resident who, while retaining his nationality, has transferred his residence from that other Member State, and

               —

               that car has been used by that resident in the same way since the transfer of residence as before the transfer of residence, that is to say, for private purposes and also for travelling to his place of work in the Member State in which he previously resided?


title: Case T-487/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — State resources — Economic activity — Advantage — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Service of general economic interest — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Misuse of power)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías v Commission
   (Case T-487/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - State resources - Economic activity - Advantage - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Misuse of power))
   (2016/C 027/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: A. Andérez González, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-526/13: Action brought on 30 September 2013 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (handbags)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/16

         Action brought on 30 September 2013 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (handbags)
   (Case T-526/13)
   2013/C 359/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2013 given in Case R 208/2012-3;

               —

               Declare the registered Community design No 61 3294-0002 invalid; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘handbags’ in Class 03-01 — registered Community design No 61 3294-0002

      Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Articles 4 to 9 and 25(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Council Regulation No 6/2002

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-594/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by the Slovak Republic against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-779/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/21

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by the Slovak Republic against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-779/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-594/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/25)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Slovak Republic claims that the Court should:

               (i)

               set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-779/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 24 September 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources;

               (ii)

               itself rule on the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on the substance of the application;

               (iii)

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

         In the event that the Court should conclude that it does not have sufficient information to make a final decision on the Commission’s objection of inadmissibility, the Slovak Republic claims, in the alternative, that the Court should:

               (i)

               set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-779/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 24 September 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources;

               (ii)

               refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on both the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and the substance of that application;

               (iii)

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Slovak Republic puts forward two grounds in support of its appeal:

               1.

               In the first ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court erred in law so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law, (ii) the criterion of the institution’s competence in the assessment of whether the contested act was open to challenge, and (iii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation.

               2.

               In the alternative, in the second ground of appeal the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court stated inadequate reasons in the order under appeal so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law and (ii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation, which is confirmed by the fact that it applied (iii) identical reasoning in cases involving different facts.


title: Case F-109/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 July 2015 — Roda v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official — Alimony paid by the deceased official — Capping of the survivor’s pension — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 July 2015 — Roda v Commission
   (Case F-109/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Remuneration - Survivor’s pension - Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official - Alimony paid by the deceased official - Capping of the survivor’s pension - Action manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 279/66)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Silvana Roda (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the amount of the survivor’s pension of which the applicant, who is the ex-spouse of a deceased official, is the beneficiary.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Orders Ms Roda to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.15, p. 54.


title: Case T-265/02: Action brought on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

text:
C 274/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.11.2002
The applicant contends in addition that the infringement in              Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche Post
the present case did not appreciably affect trade between                AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
Member States. Many of the Bankenrunden had no international                                            ties
connection. Others could at any rate have no appreciable effect
on trade between States. Even if the infringement were to have
affected trade between States appreciably, there is in any                                        (Case T-266/02)
event no fault on the applicant’s part. In accordance with
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 it was therefore not
possible to fine the applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 274/57)
Furthermore, in determining the applicant’s fine the defendant
made two errors of calculation with serious consequences.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Also, the seriousness of the infringement and the existence of
mitigating grounds are misappraised in the decision and no
regard was had to the applicant’s extensive cooperation.
Finally, the decision violates the prohibition on retroactivity in
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
because the fine was determined on the basis of a framework              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for fines which, as a result of two amendments to the                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
defendant’s decision-making practice, was not introduced until           European Communities on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche
the infringement had come to an end.                                     Post AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and
                                                                         T. Lübbig, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt
              against the European Central Bank                          —     declare the Commission Decision of 19 June 2002 on
                                                                               State aid No 61/99 (ex No 153/96) void;
                         (Case T-265/02)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                        (2002/C 274/56)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt, Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.                            The subject of the contested decision is the below-cost selling
                                                                         of parcel services for business clients, compensating for which
                                                                         gives rise to cross-subsidisation which is contrary to the law
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              on aid. In its decision the Commission found that the State aid
                                                                         of EUR 572 million, which Germany granted to the applicant,
—     annul the formal warning given by the letter of 28 Febru-          was incompatible with the common market. It found that
      ary 2002;                                                          State compensation for the net additional costs of a rebate
                                                                         policy which reduces the costs normally incurred in providing
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              door to door parcel services which are open to competition
                                                                         favoured the undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1)
                                                                         EC.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The case has the same basis as Case T-83/02 (Pflugradt v                 The applicant contests that decision and points out that the
ECB) ( 1), and the pleas in law and arguments correspond to              same below-cost selling was the subject of the Commission
those which were put forward in that case.                               Decision of 20 March 2000 ( 1) adopted on the basis of
                                                                         Article 82 EC and that the two decisions came to very different
                                                                         conclusions regarding the duration, the amount and the source
( 1) OJ C 118, 18.5.2002, p. 30.                                         of financing of the alleged below-cost selling. The applicant
                                                                         submits that the below-cost selling alleged in the Decision is
                                                                         based on a miscalculation.


title: Case T-310/03: Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Kreuzer Medien GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘CLIMATIC’ —                 The applicant runs a medium-sized publishing company and
sought:                       Application No 1705557                     publishes the Leipzig magazine ‘Kreuzer’. The magazine is
                                                                         financed inter alia by tobacco advertising.
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 11,
                              12 and 37 (inter alia, apparatus
                              for heating, steam generating,             The applicant seeks a declaration that Article 3(1) of Directive
                              refrigerating, drying and venti-           2003/33/EC is void. It argues that the directive breaches
                              lating; repair)                            Community law from several points of view. The directive
                                                                         infringes Article 251 EC as the published version of the
Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register        directive differs from that adopted by the Council and the
before the Board of           the mark in respect of goods and           Parliament. Further, the directive breaches Article 95 EC, as, in
Appeal:                       services in Classes 11 and 37              the case of a local or regional magazine such as that produced
                                                                         by the applicant, there are no internal market implications and
                                                                         the Community legislature thus has no role to play.
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                         The applicant submits further that the directive is vague and
Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement of Article 74(1)        thus breaches the constitutional requirement of certainty. It
                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/94          also infringes the requirement under Article 253 EC that
                                                                         reasons should be stated, as no reasons are actually given
                              —     Legally incorrect application        regarding the existence of obstacles to trade which could be
                                    of Article 7(1)(b) of Regu-          removed by the directive.
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant submits that the directive infringes
                                                                         the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 11 of the
                                                                         Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and
                                                                         Article 10(1) of the ECHR. That includes the right to ‘commer-
                                                                         cial speech’. The directive prejudices the placing of advertising
                                                                         and positive editorial reporting, without thereby in any way
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Kreuzer                           allowing the objective of the directive to be attained. Finally,
Medien GmbH against the European Parliament and the                      the directive infringes entrepreneurial freedom, the property
                                                                         rights of the applicant and the prohibition on going beyond
               Council of the European Union
                                                                         what is necessary laid down by the third paragraph of Article 5
                                                                         EC.
                         (Case T-310/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16.
                        (2003/C 289/57)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         Wilfer against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                                Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
of the European Communities on 11 September 2003 by
Kreuzer Medien GmbH, represented by Dr U. Kornmeier and
Dr D. Valbert.                                                                                (Case T-315/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/58)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     declare Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the
      European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003
      on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions of the Member States relating            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1)         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      void;                                                              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter Wilfer, represented by
—     order the defendant to bear the costs.                             A. Kockläuner, lawyer.


title: Case T-371/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — NICO v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — NICO v Council
   (Case T-371/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 027/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014 by which the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of person and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2000 in Case T-111/99: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (Officials — Publication of a new notice of vacancy following the annulment of a decision making an appointment — Re-establishment of career — Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials — Interests of the service — Misuse of powers — Refusal to grant a temporary posting)

text:
C 285/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.10.2000
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck v             as a single judge; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt,                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 2000, in which
H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the               it:
European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan)
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                    1.    Dismisses the application;
No 1931/97 of 22 September 1997 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of unwrought, unalloyed zinc                      2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
originating in Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the
provisional duty imposed (OJ 1997 L 272, p. 1) — the
Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Men-
gozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 20 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs together with those
      incurred by the defendant;
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                                of 5 July 2000
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.98.
                                                                          in Case T-111/99: Ignacio Samper v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Publication of a new notice of vacancy following
                                                                          the annulment of a decision making an appointment — Re-
                                                                          establishment of career — Duty to have regard for the
                                                                          welfare and interests of officials — Interests of the service
                                                                          — Misuse of powers — Refusal to grant a temporary
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                             posting)
                          of 25 May 2000                                                            (2000/C 285/16)
in Case T-173/99: Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                           (Language of the case: French)
(Officials — Open competition based on qualifications and                 In Case T-111/99: Ignacio Samper, an official of the European
tests — Breach of the notice of competition — Equality of                 Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by E. Boigelot, of
treatment of the applicants — Principle of sound adminis-                 the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
      tration — Misuse of powers and abuse of process)                    the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
                                                                          European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’An-
                                                                          na) — application for annulment of Vacancy Notice No 8675
                          (2000/C 285/15)                                 concerning the filling of a post as Head of Division in the
                                                                          Madrid Information Office and of the procedure for filling the
                                                                          post advertised by that notice by way of transfer or promotion
                    (Language of the case: French)                        — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi,
                                                                          Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
In Case T-173/99: Gilbert Elkaïm, residing in Paris, and                  has given a judgment on 5 July 2000, in which it:
Philippe Mazuel, a national expert on secondment to the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the action;
sels, represented by N. Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, 6 Rue
Hydraulique, Brussels, v Commission of the European Com-
munities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart)                 2.    Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
— application, first, for annulment of open competition
COM/A/15/98, of the lists of suitable candidates drawn up
following that competition and of any recruitments made on                (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
the basis of those lists and, second, for an order requiring the
Commission to organise a new competition — the Court of
First Instance (Single Judge), composed of: K. Lenaerts, sitting


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005 in Case T- 294/03, Jean-Louis Gibault v Commission of the European Communities (Open competition — Non-inclusion on the list of successful candidates — Lack of a statement of reasons — Discrimination on grounds of nationality)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 May 2005
   in Case T- 294/03, Jean-Louis Gibault v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Open competition - Non-inclusion on the list of successful candidates - Lack of a statement of reasons - Discrimination on grounds of nationality)
   (2005/C 193/40)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-294/03: Jean-Louis Gibault, residing in Wattrelos (France), represented by F.Tuytschaever, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition COM/A/6/01 not to include the applicant on the list of successful candidates — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as unfounded;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.


title: Case T-332/15: Action brought on 16 June 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration a.O. v Conseil

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/76

         Action brought on 16 June 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration a.O. v Conseil
   (Case T-332/15)
   (2015/C 294/91)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), First Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), First Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Second Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Second Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Third Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Third Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Fourth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fourth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Fifth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fifth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Sixth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Sixth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Seventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Seventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Eighth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Eighth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Ninth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Ninth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Tenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Tenth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Eleventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Eleventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Twelfth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Twelfth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Thirteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fourteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fifteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Sixteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kheibar Co. (Tehran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran) (represented by: P. Moser, QC, E. Metcalfe, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare inapplicable Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, on the basis of the objection of illegality;

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, being a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE, seeking a declaration of inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
               The applicants bring forward that the criteria adopted by the said Decision and Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, lack an adequate factual basis, in that the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) has been found by the General Court in its judgment in Case T-489/10, IRISL v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2013:453, not to have breached the restrictive measures imposed by the Security Council, third, breach the applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata, fourth, discriminate against entities alleged to be owned or controlled by IRISL without justification or proportionality, fifth, violate the applicants’ right of defence, sixth, violate, without justification or proportion, other of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to property, to conduct a business and to respect for their reputation, and, seventh, entail an abuse of power by the Council, in that it has simply re-applied the same restrictive measures to the applicants in circumvention of a binding judgment of the General Court.

               2.

               Second plea in law, being a plea for annulment under Article 263 TFUE, seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants.
               The applicants bring forward that the said Decision and Implementing Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, involve manifest errors of assessment, third, lack a sufficient factual basis, fourth, breach the applicant’s rights of defence and their entitlement to reasons, fifth, breach the applicant’s rights to an effective remedy, the principle of ne bis in idem and the general principle of legitimate expectation, and, sixth, violate without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular their rights to property and to conduct a business.


title: Case C-14/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Hava Genc v Land Berlin (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1) — Concept of worker — Exercise of minor employment — Condition governing loss of acquired rights)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Hava Genc v Land Berlin
   (Case C-14/09) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘worker’ - Exercise of minor employment - Condition governing loss of acquired rights)
   2010/C 80/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hava Genc

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council — Right to remain of a Turkish national whose entry into the territory of the host Member State was based on a ground which no longer exists and whose professional activity, amounting to 5.5 hours per week, is merely minor — Minimum characteristics of a working relationship required for it to be considered ‘regular employment’ within the meaning of Decision No 1/80

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A person in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings is a worker within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, provided that the employment in question is real and genuine. It is for the national court to carry out the examinations of fact necessary to determine whether that is so in the case pending before it.

               2.

               A Turkish worker, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, may rely on the right to free movement which he derives from the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, even if the purpose for which he entered the host Member State no longer exists. Where such a worker satisfies the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of that decision, his right of residence in the host Member State cannot be made subject to additional conditions as to the existence of interests capable of justifying residence or as to the nature of the employment.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-3/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus, Estonia) — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 — Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Conditions for exemption — Article 3(1) — First independent customer in the European Union — Acquisition of ammonium nitrate fertiliser through another company — Release of the goods — Application for invalidation of the customs declaration — Decision 2008/577/EC — Customs Code — Articles 66 and 220 — Error — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 251 — Post-release verification)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus, Estonia) — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus
   (Case C-3/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Conditions for exemption - Article 3(1) - First independent customer in the European Union - Acquisition of ammonium nitrate fertiliser through another company - Release of the goods - Application for invalidation of the customs declaration - Decision 2008/577/EC - Customs Code - Articles 66 and 220 - Error - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 251 - Post-release verification))
   2014/C 421/08
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AS Baltic Agro

      Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, must be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a Member State, which purchased ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, through another company also established in a Member State, with a view to importing it into the Union, may not be considered to be the first independent customer in the Union, within the meaning of that provision, and may not therefore be eligible for the exemption from definitive anti-dumping duty laid down by that regulation in respect of the ammonium nitrate.

               2)

               Articles 66 and 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006, of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as not precluding a customs authority from making a subsequent entry in the accounts of anti-dumping duty when, as in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the requests to invalidate the customs declarations were brought on the ground that the entry for the consignee was incorrect and that the authority had accepted those declarations or put in hand a verification exercise after receiving those requests.

               3)

               Article 66 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 251 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2009, of 16 April 2009 are compatible with the fundamental right to equality before the law affirmed in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in circumstances where, in the context of the common customs tariff, referred to in Articles 28 TFEU and 31 TFEU, the aforementioned provisions of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 312/2009, do not permit the invalidation, on request, of an incorrect customs declaration and thus the grant of the benefit of the exemption from anti-dumping duty to the consignee that the latter could have claimed, if the error had not been made.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-644/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/14

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission
   (Case T-644/11 P)
   2012/C 65/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Eugène Emile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant clams that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10;

               —

               consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:

                           —

                           annul the appellant’s 2008 Career Development Report;

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay the costs;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(8) of Annex I to the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the European Union Staff Regulations, distortion of the file and infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging failure by the reporting officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc committee.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and of the burden of proof, and also infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons in its examination of the plea alleging unlawful appeals procedure and failure to state reasons in the appraisal report challenged at first instance.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the obligation to state reasons and manifest error of assessment, and also infringement of Article 4(6) of the general rules for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging a failure to take account of the work performed by the appellant in the interest of the institution.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and disregard of the burden of proof and infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the reporting officer’s assessment of whether or not the appellant had complied with the alleged reorganisation of the department being tested since 2008.