title: Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Unicem SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-50/95)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 119/15
— in the alternative, set aside or at least reduce the fines           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      imposed pursuant to Articles 9.22 and 10.3 of the
      Decision,                                                        — annual the Decision of the Commission 94/815/EC
                                                                            (IV/33.126 and 33.322 ) of 30 November 1994 relating
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                  to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty 0 ), at
                                                                           least in so far as concerns the applicant,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on
The applicant seeks annulment of the Decision on the                       it,
following grounds:
                                                                       — in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs of the
1 . Breach of the right to a fair hearing by reason of                     proceedings and to reimburse to the applicant the costs
      procedural irregularities committed both at the time of              and interest incurred in respect of the security lodged,
      adoption of the international complaints and severance               either in their entirety or in so far as they relate to the
      of the national complaints .                                         fine, if reduced .
2 . Breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty resulting from               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manifest errors of assessment relating both to the global
      context of the alleged agreement and the definition of           The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
      the market at issue .                                            its application:
3 . Breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty in so far as the               I. Breach of essential procedural requirements :
      Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in
      respect of the infringements found against the applicant                ( a ) In the stages prior to the adoption of the
      relating to :                                                                 Decision :
      — involvement in the 'Cembureau principle',                                   — failure to notify to the applicant the documents
                                                                                on which the Commission based its Statement
      — involvement in the ' Greek problem',                                            of Objections,
      — involvement on the Export Committees,                                       — failure to identify to whom the Statement of
                                                                                Objections is addressed,
      — involvement in bilateral application measures,
                                                                                — breach of the principle of immediacy;
      — involvement on the White Cement Committee .
                                                                              ( b ) In the adoption of the Decision:
In the alternative, the applicant seeks:
                                                                                — formulation of new objections and
1 , annulment of the fines for breach of Article 190 of the
                                                                                amendment of previous ones; inconsistency
      EC Treaty, Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 and                            with a previous decision,
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74;
                                                                                — infringement of the applicant's right of
2 , reduction of the amount of the fines on the ground of                               defence; the new objections raised which
      infringement of the principles of proportionality,                                were not contained in the Statement of
      protection of legitimate expectations and non                                    Objections,
      discrimination .
                                                                                — erroneous authentication of the Decision,
                                                                                — use of statements submitted by the parties in
                                                                                their defence to support arguments against
                                                                                them and against other parties which had not
Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Unicem SpA                                        been given the opportunity to reply to them,
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-50/95                                            — Decision addressed to the wrong persons:
                            ( 95/C 119/36 )                                             breach of the principle of equal treatment and
                                                                                of the applicant's rights of defence,
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                    — failure to specify the duration of the
                                                                                infringements alleged in the Decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       II. Insufficient statement of reasons, breach of rules of law
Instance of the European Communities on 21 February                           and erroneous assessment of the evidence as regards:
1995 by Unicem SpA, whose registered office is in Turin
( Italy), represented by Grande Stevens, of the Turin Bar,                    ( a ) the definition of the relevant market;
Magrone Osti of the Rome Bar, and Gandini, of the Turin
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                         ( b) the alleged 'Cembureau Agreement' limiting
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                             national markets;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/16             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
      (c ) the exchange of information on prices;                    — in the alternative, annul Article 9 of that decision in so
                                                                         far as it imposes the fine on the applicant,
      (d ) the agreement to set up a 'European Task
            Force ';                                                 — reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the
                                                                         applicant;
      (e ) the agreement to set up a 'Joint Trading
            Company';
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs,
      ( f) the agreement and certain concerted practices
            adopted to protect the Italian market;                   — order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
                                                                         costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the
      (g) the alleged concerted practices within the                     administrative procedure,
            European Cement Export Committee ( ECEC).
                                                                     — order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
III. As regards the fine, the applicant claims that:                     costs incurred in providing a security for the payment of
                                                                         the fine payable under the Decision.
      (a ) Unicem did not possess the degree of knowledge
            attributed to it by the Commission: its conduct
            could not have been 'intentional';                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      ( b ) the time for prosecuting some of the infringements       The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
            imputed to Unicem had expired; others were not           its application:
            charged against Unicem in the Statement of
            Objections; some could not have been of the              1 . Serious infringement of the rights of the defence and of
            alleged duration;                                             procedural rules as follows:
      (c ) the infringements allegedly committed by Unicem                ( a ) inconsistency between the charges and the
            are much less serious than the Commission                           Decision;
            considers; there has been a breach of the principle
            of proportionality and of the principle of equal              ( b ) insufficiently specific and incomplete charges;
            treatment;
      ( d ) the fine has been calculated on various erroneous             (c ) failure to give the applicant a reasonable period in
            bases, which creates substantial disparity in                       which to submit its observations in its defence;
            treatment .
                                                                          ( d ) failure to forward to the Consultative Committee
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                       essential and relevant parts of the draft Decision.
                                                                     2 . Infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                         result of erroneous or inadequate assessment and legal
                                                                         characterization of the facts .
Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 3 . Breach of the principle personal liability.
                          Case T-51/95 )
                                                                    4. Breach of the principle ne bis in idem.
                          ( 95/C 119/37)
                                                                    5 . Breach of the principle in dubio pro reo.
                 (Language of the case: ltalian)
                                                                     6. Infringement of Articles 1 ( b ) and 2 ( 3 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74 of 26 November
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         1974 .
Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA, whose registered office is at           7. Infringement of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
Casale Monferrato (Italy), represented by Messrs Brosio                  No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 inasmuch as:
and Pavesio, of the Turin Bar, Dr Crescenza, of the Rome
Bar, and Dr. Ceraolo, of the Turin Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Faltz,                       (a ) sales not relating to the preceding financial year
                                                                                were taken into account;
Avocat, 6 Rue Heine .
                                                                         ( b) the subjective element was not considered;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in whole or in part the Decision of the                          (c ) the duration and seriousness of the infringement
    Commission 94/815/EC (IV/33.126 and 33.322 —                                were incorrectly assessed.
    Cement) ( a ) of 30 November 1994 in so far as concerns
    the applicant,                                                  8 . Breach of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-420/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Unlawful deposit of waste at the‘Pera Galini’ site — Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC — Articles 4 and 9)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-420/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Unlawful deposit of waste at the ‘Pera Galini’ site - Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4 and 9)
   (2005/C 6/14)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-420/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 21 November 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) and Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste deposited at the ‘Pera Galini’ site in the prefecture of Heraklion will be recovered or disposed of without endangering human health, without risk to water, air, soil, plants and animals and without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and by granting a permit to operate that installation which does not contain the necessary information, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case C-513/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2007 by AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-141/06: Glaverbel SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/31

         Appeal brought on 21 November 2007 by AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-141/06: Glaverbel SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-513/07 P)
   (2008/C 51/53)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA (represented by: S. Möbus and T. Koerl, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 in case T-141/06 concerning the Community trade mark application No 3183068;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant submits that the appealed judgment of the Court of First Instance is based on a wrong intepretation of Article 7(3) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) (hereinafter ‘CTMR’) caused by a wrong assessment of the target public and a wrong assessment of the territory which has to be considered.

               1.

               Contrary to the assessment of the Court of First Instance the target public consists of specialists of the glass industry only. The Court of First Instance thus incorrectly applied Article 7(3) CTMR in respect of the assessment of the target public.

               2.

               Contrary to the assessment of the Court of First Instance the Defendant incorrectly examined the evidence provided in respect of the acquired distinctiveness for each member state separately as this apparently contradicts Article 7(3) CTMR requiring an acquired distnctiveness through use throughout the Community. What the Defendant would have been required to do — instead of assessing the number of member states — is to look at the provided evidence as a whole and to assess whether it builds a coherent picture of sustained use in a sufficiently large geographical area over a sufficiently long period of time before the filing date.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).


title: Case C-29/14: Action brought on 21 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/17

         Action brought on 21 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-29/14)
   2014/C 85/32
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Gheorghiu and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, (1) under Articles 3(b), 4(2) and 7 of, and Annex III to, Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, (2) and under Article 11 of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (3) by exempting reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue from the scope of the provisions of national law designed to transpose those directives;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Poland’s transposition of Directives 2004/23, 2006/17 and 2006/86 into the Polish legal system is incomplete because the scope of the Law of 1 July 2005 on the procurement, storage and transplantation of cells, tissue and organs, by which those directives were transposed into the Polish legal system, and of the implementing measures adopted on the basis of that Law does not encompass reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue.
   As a result, Polish legislation contains no provisions for the transposition of Directives 2004/23 and 2006/86 in so far as those directives relate to reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue.
   There has also been a failure to transpose the provisions of Directive 2006/17 concerning reproductive cells, that is to say, Articles 3(b) and 4(2) of, and Annex III to, that directive.
   In the procedure prior to the judicial proceedings, while the Republic of Poland confirmed that there were no corresponding provisions in national law, it stressed the following: ‘In the context of reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue, the provisions of the directives are to a large degree applied in daily clinical practice — they have been transposed at an expert level …’.
   The Commission takes the view that it was necessary for the provisions in question to be transposed in full by way of legally binding measures.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32.


title: Case C-582/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value-added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 169 to 171 — Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC — Article 2 — Refund — Taxable person not established in the European Union — Insurance transactions — Financial transactions)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-582/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 169 to 171 - Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC - Article 2 - Refund - Taxable person not established in the European Union - Insurance transactions - Financial transactions)
   2010/C 246/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao and S. Hathaway, acting as Agents, and K. Lasok QC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 169, 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of Article 2(1) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40) — National legislation which does not permit the recovery of input tax paid in respect of certain insurance and financial transactions carried out by taxable persons not established in Community territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-662/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH
   (Case C-662/15)
   (2016/C 118/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant and respondent: BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

      Question referred

   Are Article 1(2)(f), Article 11, point 13 of Annex I and the last indent of point 3 of Annex VII [to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a further conformity assessment procedure is required for the marketing of a Class I medical device, which has been made subject to a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer and lawfully bears the CE marking affixed by the manufacturer, where the information relating to the central pharmaceutical number (Pharmazentralnummer) on the outer packaging of the medical device has been concealed by a sticker which provides the importer’s details and the central pharmaceutical number granted to that importer, the other information remaining visible?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Boyle and Others v Commission (Fishing — Multiannual guidance programmes — Requests to increase the objectives on safety grounds — Decision 97/413/EC — Refusal of the Commission — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Competence of the Commission)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Boyle and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03) (1)

   (Fishing - Multiannual guidance programmes - Requests to increase the objectives on safety grounds - Decision 97/413/EC - Refusal of the Commission - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Competence of the Commission)
   (2006/C 190/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Cathal Boyle (Killybegs, Ireland) and the other 22 applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: P. Gallagher SC, A. Collins SC and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and B. Doherty, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan and C. O'Toole, Agents, and by D. Conlan Smyth, Barrister]

   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), in so far as it rejects the applicants' request to increase the capacity of their vessels
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications lodged by Thomas Faherty (T-224/03), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (T-226/03), Larry Murphy (T-236/03) and O'Neill Fishing Co. Ltd (T-239/03);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the vessels of the other applicants;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants referred to in paragraph 2;

               4.

               Order the applicants referred to in paragraph 1 to bear their own costs;

               5.

               Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.


title: Case T-505/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Inverni and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/37

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Inverni and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-505/17)
   (2017/C 347/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Inverni, SL (Madrid, Spain), Inverindesa, SL (Madrid) and Isaac Ignacio Fernández Fernández (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

               —

               Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-205/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA (Articles 28 EC to 30 EC — Directive 97/7/EC — Consumer protection in distance contracts — Period for withdrawal — Prohibition on requiring from a consumer an advance or payment before the end of the period for withdrawal)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA
   (Case C-205/07) (1)

   (Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection in distance contracts - Period for withdrawal - Prohibition on requiring from a consumer an advance or payment before the end of the period for withdrawal)
   (2009/C 44/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Beroep te Gent
   Parties in the main proceedings
   Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC — Effects on intra-community trade of a national rule prohibiting a requirement that a consumer pay an advance or make payment before the expiry of a withdrawal period — Compatibility with Community law
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   Article 29 EC does not preclude national rules which prohibit a supplier in cross-border distance selling from requiring an advance or any payment from a consumer before expiry of the withdrawal period, but Article 29 EC does preclude a prohibition, under those rules, on requesting, before expiry of that period, the number of the consumer's payment card.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-18/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-18/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/67)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.


title: Case C-253/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam by judgment of that court of 27 June 2001 in the case of S. Klip-Krüger against Board of the Dienst Wegverkeer, a public agency having legal personality

text:
C 289/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
2.   Would it not be an alternative more compatible with                        registered, the holder commits an offence when driving a
     fundamental rights to restrict the obligation to disclose                  motor vehicle in the Netherlands?
     company data to undertakings for which independent
     auditors have found problems with specific data of
     the undertaking and hence a special public need for                   2.   Does national legislation such as that described in the
     information?                                                               first question and which has the consequences set out
                                                                                therein constitute a restriction on the free movement of
                                                                                persons and, if so, can that restriction be justified by the
3.   Are the disclosure obligations in the First and Fourth                     consideration that it enables the data featured on the
     Directives compatible with the fundamental rights under                    document to be regularly renewed and the document to
     the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?                                be adjusted to technological improvements as regards the
                                                                                requirements which the document should meet from the
                                                                                point of view of security and prevention of fraud?
4.   Did the data protection directive, telecommunications
     directive and administrative assistance directive derogate
     substantively from the disclosure directives?
                                                                           (1) OJ 1991, L 237, p. 1.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 41.
(2) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                           Epikratias by judgment of that court of 12 June 2001 in
                                                                           the case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against
                                                                           the Minister for Development, the Soma Orkoton
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-                                           Elegkton and Others
mentsrechtbank Rotterdam by judgment of that court of
27 June 2001 in the case of S. Klip-Krüger against Board
of the Dienst Wegverkeer, a public agency having legal                                               (Case C-255/01)
                             personality
                                                                                (2001/C 289/19)
                          (Case C-253/01)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2001/C 289/18)                                  European Communities by judgment of the Simvoulio tis
                                                                           Epikratias (Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against the Minister
European Communities by judgment of the Arrondissements-                   for Development, the Soma Orkoton Elegkton (Institute of
rechtbank Rotterdam (District Court, Rotterdam) of 27 June                 Certified Auditors) and Others on the following questions:
2001, received at the Court Registry on 2 July 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of S. Klip-Krüger v Board of the
Dienst Wegverkeer (road traffic authority), a public agency                a)   May the national legislature, on the basis of Article 15 of
having legal personality, on the following questions:                           the Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April
                                                                                1984 (1), make use of the power provided for by that
                                                                                article and provide for the possibility for various catego-
1.   Must the Directive (1) — more particularly Article 1(1)                    ries of persons to be approved to audit accounting
     and (2) thereof — be interpreted as meaning that national                  documents, in derogation from the permanent rules,
     legislation adopted in implementation thereof is consist                   that is to say without first sitting an examination of
     with it where under that legislation an obligation exists                  professional competence, when the Member State in
     or arises for the holder of a driving licence issued by the                question has already, before the adoption of the directive,
     competent authority in the Federal Republic of Germany,                    laid down that examination in national law? In any event,
     which is valid for the holder’s lifetime, to exchange that                 may the national legislature make repeated use of the
     licence within one year of moving his normal place of                      power to adopt transitional provisions on the basis of the
     residence to the Netherlands, because a driving licence                    abovementioned article of the directive, in particular after
     issued more than ten years previously cannot be registered                 the deadline of 1 January 1991 (Article 15 in conjunction
     in the Netherlands and, if the driving licence is not                      with Article 30(2) of the directive)?


title: Joined Cases T-75/07 and T-363/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — Hamdi v Council

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — Hamdi v Council
   (Joined Cases T-75/07 and T-363/07) (1)

   (2008/C 272/95)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-146/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/18

         Action brought on 26 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-146/10)
   2010/C 148/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and M. Adam, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The Commission requests the Court:

               —

               to declare that, by failing to adopt in full the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, (1) or by failing to notify the Commission in full of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/21/EC;

               —

               to order the Republic of Austria pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 May 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.


title: Case C-451/09 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2009 by Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia against the judgment of 16 September 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-162/07 Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/31

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2009 by Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia against the judgment of 16 September 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-162/07 Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-451/09 P)
   2010/C 24/57
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia (represented by: N. Skandamis and M. Perakis, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-162/07 on account of insufficient and unclear reasoning, misinterpretation of the legal concepts cited in the appeal and incorrect assessment on the part of the Court of First Instance of the evidence adduced before it;

               —

               hold that the state of the proceedings permits it to give final judgment in the matter (first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court) and to do so;

         In the alternative

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to decide the action for damages brought on 8 May 2007 against the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to compensate for the damage suffered by reason of unlawful acts and omissions of the above institutions, as described in the action;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal of 16 November 2009 Pegasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia is challenging the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 in Case T-162/07, on the ground that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by giving insufficient reasoning for its decision, misinterpretation of legal concepts and mistaken assessment of the evidence adduced.
   In particular:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance held that the rules in Regulation No 2454/93 on the exclusive use of Document T2M as proof of the Community nature of products of sea-fishing caught in international waters and transported through a third country were necessary and proportionate. According to the appellant, the Court did not address all its pleas and arguments, in particular concerning the possibility that the Community legislature should provide for alternative means of proof, especially in view of the inappropriate nature of the measure as regards securing trade. In addition, the Court of First Instance did not give sufficient reasons for its conclusion as to the necessity and proportionality of the Community rules, and misinterpreted the nature of Customs Document T2M as giving entitlement to free movement.

               2.

               According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance did not assess correctly the evidence which it submitted, with the consequence that it held that the content of the documents issued by the Tunisian customs authorities to Pigasos was not equivalent to box 13 of Document T2M. However, it is clear from the documents submitted as a whole that the Tunisian customs authorities kept the products of sea-fishing under the same continuous supervision as that prescribed by Document T2M. On the basis of the Tunisian authorities’ documents, it is confirmed that the products of sea-fishing were in Tunisian territory under the transit regime, which means under domestic law that a product is kept under continuous supervision by the customs authorities, which is also what is required to be attested to in box 13 of Document T2M.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance also found that Pigasos did not show the diligence required in its business activities in Tunisia, which led the Court, according to the appellant, to misinterpret that concept in law and extend the care and attention required of a businessman to generalised suspicion of the conduct of executive bodies of third countries, on the sole ground that they are not bound by Community law.

         For the above reasons the appellant asks the Court of Justice of the European Communities to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-162/07 and to give judgment on the case itself or, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court for judgment.


title: Case C-437/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux (France) lodged on 9 November 2009 — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux (France) lodged on 9 November 2009 — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL
   (Case C-437/09)
   2010/C 24/48
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

      Defendant: Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

      Question referred

   Are a provision making affiliation to a supplementary healthcare scheme compulsory, as provided for under Article L 912-1 of the Social Security Code, and the addendum, made compulsory by the public authorities at the request of organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector, which provides for affiliation to a single body, designated to manage a supplementary healthcare scheme, without any possibility for undertakings in that sector to be granted a waiver of the affiliation obligation, in compliance with Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, or are they such as to place the designated body in a dominant position constituting an abuse?


title: Case C-309/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August 1999 in the case of 1. J.C.J. Wouters 2. Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community 3. J.W. Savelbergh 4. Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV and Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten

text:
16.10.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 299/15
Appeal brought on 13 August 1999 by the French                            (As regards the order as to costs:)
Republic against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                        — Infringement of Article 87(4), alternatively Article 87(6) of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                        the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Case T-17/96 between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1)
and the Commission of the European Communities sup-                       (1) Case C-107/95 P Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter v Com-
                ported by the French Republic                                 mission (1997) ECR I-947.
                        (Case C-308/99 P)
                          (1999/C 299/16)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by                Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                  1999 in the case of 1. J.C.J. Wouters 2. Council of the Bars
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96                and Law Societies of the European Community 3. J.W.
between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission                Savelbergh 4. Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV
of the European Communities supported by the French                       and Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advo-
Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the                                                  caten
European Communities on 13 August 1999 by the French
Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Frédérik                                      (Case C-309/99)
Million, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                         (1999/C 299/17)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities by a judgment of the Netherlands
                                                                          Raad van State (Council of State) of 10 August 1999, which
— set aside point 2 (in so far as it is conceded that the action          was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a
    under Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) is              preliminary ruling in the case of 1. J.C.J. Wouters, 2. Council
    admissible) and point 6 of the operative part of the                  of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community 3.
    judgment under appeal;                                                J.W. Savelbergh 4. Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV
                                                                          against the Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van
— grant the form of order sought by the Commission at first               Advocaten (the Netherlands Bar Council) on the following
    instance.                                                             questions:
                                                                          1.(a) Is the term ‘association of undertakings’ in Article 85(1)
                                                                                [now Article 81(1)] of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 meaning that there is such an association only if and in
                                                                                so far as it acts in the undertakings’ interest, so that in
(As regards the admissibility of the action under Article 90:)                  applying that provision a distinction must be made
                                                                                between activities of the association carried out in the
— The Court of First Instance erred in law and in its legal                     public interest and other activities, or is the mere fact
    characterisation of the facts: The admissibility of an action               that an association can also act in the undertakings’
    for failure to act is subject to the existence of a duty to act.            interest sufficient for it to be regarded as an association
    Under the Treaty, the Commission is under no obligation                     of undertakings within the meaning of the provision in
    to act pursuant to Article 90(3). That provision confers                    respect of all its actions? Is the fact that the universally
    upon it a discretion similar to that which it enjoys in the                 binding rules adopted by the relevant institution are
    application of Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article                    adopted under a statutory power and in its capacity as a
    226 EC).                                                                    special legislature relevant as regards the application of
                                                                                Community competition law?
    As a subsidiary plea, the French Government expresses the
    view that the Court of First Instance could not have                  1.(b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is that there is an
    accepted the characterisation of an ‘exceptional situation’                 association of undertakings only if and in so far as it acts
    within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice                  in the undertakings’ interest, is the question of when
    without misconstruing the scope of that concept, which is                   the public interest is being pursued also governed by
    necessarily very restrictive. Exceptional situations, within                Community law?
    the meaning of the judgment in Bundesverband der
    Bilanzbuchhalter (1) must, the French Government submits,             1.(c) If the answer to Question 1(b) is that Community law is
    be limited to instances where State measures merely ‘ratify’                relevant, can the adoption under a statutory power by
    (encourage or support) anti-competitive conduct engaged                     an institution such as the [Netherlands] Bar Association
    in on their own initiative by undertakings caught by Article                of universally binding rules, designed to safeguard the
    90, in order to prevent public intervention of that kind                    independence and loyalty to the client of lawyers provid-
    from shielding anti-competitive conduct which is to be                      ing legal assistance, on the formation of co-operative
    prohibited as a matter of course in accordance with                         associations between lawyers and members of other
    Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and                    professions be regarded for the purposes of Community
    82 EC).                                                                     law as pursuing the public interest?
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.10.1999
2. If the answers to the first question indicate that a rule such            way in which those concerned actually wish to model their
   as the [Samenwerkingsverordening — Regulation on the                      co-operation, with either the provisions on the right of
   formation of cooperative associations — 1993] is to be                    establishment or with those relating to the freedom to
   regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings                  provide services?
   within the meaning of Article 85(1) [now Article 81(1)] of
   the EC Treaty, is such a decision, in so far as it adopts            8. Does a prohibition on integrated co-operative associations
   universally binding rules, designed to safeguard the inde-                between lawyers and accountants such as the one in
   pendence and loyalty to the client of lawyers providing                   question constitute a restriction of the right of establish-
   legal assistance, on the formation of co-operative associ-                ment or the freedom to provide services, or both?
   ations such as the one in question to be regarded as having
   as its object or effect the restriction of competition within
   the common market and in that respect affecting trade                9. If it follows from the answer to the previous question that
   between the Member States? What criteria of Community                     one or both of the abovementioned restrictions exists, is
   law are relevant to the determination of that issue?                      the restriction in question justified on the ground that it
                                                                             constitutes merely a ‘selling arrangement’ within the
                                                                             meaning of Keck and Mithouard and therefore there is no
                                                                             discrimination, or on the ground that it satisfies the criteria
3. Is the term ‘undertaking’ in Article 86 (now Article 82) of               that have been developed in that respect by the Court of
   the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where an                  Justice in other judgments, in particular Gebhard?
   institution such as the Bar Association must be regarded
   as an association of undertakings, that institution must
   also be considered to be an undertaking or group of
   undertakings for the purposes of that provision, even
   though it pursues no economic activity itself?
4. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative and
   it must be held that an institution such as the Bar
   Association enjoys a dominant position, does such an                 Action brought on 13 August 1999 by the Italian Republic
   institution abuse that position if it regulates the relation-          against the Commission of the European Communities
   ships of the lawyers affiliated to it with others on the
   market in legal services in a manner which restricts
   competition?                                                                                (Case C-310/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/18)
5. If an institution such as the Bar Association is to be
   regarded as a whole as an association of undertakings for
   the purposes of Community competition law, is Article                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
   90(2) [now Article 86(2)] of the EC Treaty to be interpreted         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
   as extending to an institution such as the Bar Association           Communities on 13 August 1999 by the Italian Republic,
   which lays down universally binding rules, designed to               represented by its Agent Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted
   safeguard the independence and loyalty to the client of              by Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address
   lawyers providing legal assistance, on co-operation                  for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
   between lawyers and members of other professions?                    Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
6. If an institution such as the Bar Association is to be
   regarded as an association of undertakings or an undertak-           — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
   ing or group of undertakings, do Article 3g, the second                   Communities of 11 May 1999 No C(1999)1364 final (1),
   paragraph of Article 5 and Articles 85 and 86 (now                        in so far as it is contested in the present action;
   Articles 3g, 10, 81 and 82) of the EC Treaty preclude a
   Member State from providing that (an agency of) that
   institution may adopt rules concerning inter alia co-                — in the alternative, annul the said decision in so far as it
   operation between lawyers and members of other pro-                       provides for the recovery of sums constituting incompat-
   fessions when review by the relevant public authority of                  ible aid;
   such rules is limited to the power to annul such a rule
   without the authority’s being able to adopt a rule in its            — order the Commission of the European Communities to
   stead?                                                                    pay the costs.
7. Are both the Treaty provisions on the right of establish-
   ment and those on the freedom to provide services                    Pleas in law and main arguments
   applicable to a prohibition on co-operation between
   lawyers and accountants such as that in question, or is the          1. The Commission’s decision appears to be open to challenge
   EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that such a                        on the grounds of abuse of power and inadequate (illogical)
   prohibition must comply, depending for example on the                     statement of reasons in relation to the definition of the


title: Case T-367/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2008 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2008 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-367/07) (1)

   (2009/C 19/71)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-255/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Waste recovery — Implementation of the third line of the Brescia waste incinerator — Publicity for the application for a permit — Directives 75/442/EEC, 85/337/EEC and 2000/76/EC)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-255/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Waste recovery - Implementation of the ‘third line’ of the Brescia waste incinerator - Publicity for the application for a permit - Directives 75/442/EEC, 85/337/EEC and 2000/76/EC)
   (2007/C 199/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent, and F. Louis and A. Capobianco, avocats)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Infringement of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91) — Consent granted without an assessment of and without making public the prior application for an authorisation — Implementation of a ‘third line’ of waste incineration by ASM di Brescia SpA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not making the project to implement a ‘third line’ of the incinerator belonging to ASM Brescia SpA subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in Articles 5 to 10 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, before consent was given for its construction, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Declares that, by not making the declaration in respect of the commencement of the operations of the ‘third line’ of that incinerator available at one or more locations accessible to the public for an appropriate period, to enable the public to comment on it before the competent authority reached a decision, and by not making the decisions relating to that declaration, including a copy of the authorisation, available to the public, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/21

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-100/17 P)
   (2017/C 168/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment;

               —

               rule on the substance and annul the Regulation 397/2004 (1) or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Annulment; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the General Court proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Appellant puts forward the following arguments:

               —

               The General Court committed an error in law by holding that the Appellant no longer has an interest in the second and third pleas in law. When deciding whether the Appellant has a continued interest in the case, the Court must take into account all evidence and information before it and look at the overall context. The errors in the Council’s dumping margin calculations are methodological and liable of recurring in the future.

               —

               The General Court committed an error of law in finding without properly addressing (in some cases, not addressing at all) the Appellant’s arguments that the EU industry’s shifting of production to the high-value segment of the EU bed linen market and the increasing EU imports of bed linen from Turkish producers related to the EU industry did not break the causal link between the alleged dumping and the alleged material injury of the EU industry. Furthermore, the findings of the General Court are based on distortions of the facts as presented in Regulation 397/2004 and incorrect legal characterisations of the facts.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004, L 66, p. 1).


title: Case F-122/07: Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/65

         Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-122/07)
   (2008/C 64/108)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside memorandum RELEX.K.4 D(2006) 522434 of 30 November 2006;

               —

               set aside memorandum D(2007) 502458 of 15 February 2007;

               —

               set aside the decision closing the investigation into the incident of 6 September 2001 when the applicant sought the assistance of the security service of the European Commission delegation in Angola for the purpose of replacing a tyre on his car;

               —

               set aside the defendant's decision, howsoever drawn up, to reject the request of 1 September 2006 which the applicant had forwarded to the appointing authority;

               —

               set aside, to the extent necessary, memorandum ADMIN.B.2/MB/nb D(07) 16072 of 16 July 2007;

               —

               set aside, to the extent necessary, the decision, howsoever drawn up, to reject the complaint of 26 march 2007 which the applicant had forwarded to the appointing authority;

               —

               order the defendant to conduct an investigation for the purpose of establishing the events of 5 May 2003 when the head ad interim of administration of the EC delegation in Angola drove the applicant's car from the parking lot outside his accommodation to a location approximately four kilometres away, the events of 6 September 2001, and whether there is any link between those events, and to notify the applicant without delay of the results of the investigation, to display in a number of suitable and visible locations notices containing in extract form the findings of the investigation and to ensure access to those findings; in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the now irreversible harm resulting from the decision rejecting the request of 1 September 2006, the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, and, with regard to the harm which will occur after the date on which this present application is made, the sum of EUR 20, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, for each day from the date following that on which this present application is made to the date on which, on conclusion of the investigation, the applicant will be notified and the findings given adequate publicity;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the now irreversible harm resulting from the refusal to send him an Italian translation of the memorandum of 30 November 2006, the sum of EUR 20 000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, and, with regard to the harm which will occur after the date on which this present application is made, the sum of EUR 2, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, for each day from the date following that on which this present application is made to the date on which all measures are adopted to give effect to the annulment of the refusal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the harm — both that which has already occurred and that which is liable to occur in the future — resulting from the decision to close the investigation, so far as concerns the harm which has now occurred irreversibly, the sum of EUR 20 000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, to be paid immediately after judgment has been delivered in this case, and, with regard to the harm which will occur after the date on which this present application is made, the sum of EUR 25, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, for each day from the date following that on which this present application is made to the date on which the defendant will have adopted all measures to give effect to the requisite annulment of the decision to close the investigation;

               —

               confirm the illegality of the fact that, at least up to the date on which he received the memorandum of 30 November 2006, the applicant was not provided with any notification of the decision to close the investigation;

               —

               declare unlawful the failure to notify the applicant that the investigation had been closed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the harm resulting from the failure to notify the latter that the investigation had been closed, the sum of EUR 50 000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the form of order sought, the applicant invokes the following three pleas: (1) absolute lack of reasons, by virtue of, inter alia, want of logic, inconsistency, unreasonableness, confusion, lack of good faith and absence or inadequacy of the investigation; (2) serious, patent and manifest breach of law; (3) breach of the duty of care and of the duty to ensure sound administration.


title: Case T-710/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/36

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-710/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/63)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-424/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/14

         Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)
   (Case T-424/17)
   (2017/C 318/19)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FRUIT’ — EU trade mark No 5 077 508

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 2119/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-54/02: Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 97/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Italian                        The Italian Government considers that it is constrained to
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                     challenge the Commission’s decision in order to prevent the
                              munities                                   definitive nature of that decision from constituting an obstacle
                                                                         to the effects of the judgment to be delivered in Case C-231/00.
                          (Case C-54/02)
                                                                         In addition to challenging the reduction in the advances and
                                                                         in any event the definitive nature of the Commission’s
                          (2002/C 97/12)                                 determination, the Italian Government seeks annulment of the
                                                                         contested decision on the ground that it infringes Articles 3, 5
                                                                         and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1) and inasmuch as (in
                                                                         relation to the 1995/96 period) it provides for reductions in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                advances which are greater than the levies which are to be paid
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             to it.
Communities on 14 February 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Gianni De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato.
                                                                         1995/96 and 1996/97 periods: claim for default interest
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In calculating the amount of the interest due on the additional
                                                                         levy payable each month for the period following the prescri-
—     annul Commission Decision 2001/889/EC of 12 Decem-                 bed date (1 September 1996 and 1 September 1997 respecti-
      ber 2001 in so far as it:                                          vely), the Commission has correctly excluded from the capital
                                                                         sum the amounts declared to the EAGGF from 1 September
      (a)   provides for a reduction in the advances on agricul-         1996 (and 1997) to December 2001; however, it has not
            tural expenditure, taking into account the interest          taken account of the reductions in the advances made in the
            relating thereto;                                            course of 1997.
      (b) alternatively, provides definitively rather than provi-        For the 1995/96 period, the Commission, working on the
            sionally for a reduction in the advances on agricultu-       basis of the reductions in the advances granted to Italy for
            ral expenditure, taking into account the interest            agricultural expenditure, has already obtained for the assets of
            relating thereto;                                            the Fund the entire amount of the additional levies (indeed, the
                                                                         reduction in the advance was even greater).
      (c)   fails to reimburse to Italy the sum of
            LIT 45 145 363 199 (EUR 23 315 634,29), the
            same having been improperly withheld;                        Likewise, the reduction in the advances for the 1996/97
                                                                         period, although not sufficient to cover the entire amount of
                                                                         the additional levies, was not taken into account in the interest
      (d) incorrectly determines the amount of any interest
                                                                         calculation.
            which may be due to the Fund without taking
            account of the reductions made in the advances;
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(1), p. 218.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
1996/97 period: reduction in advances and refusal of financing
                                                                                (Case C-55/02)
In Case C-231/00 Lattepiù the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale per il Lazio has referred for a preliminary ruling
under Article 234 EC a question on the correct interpretation                                       (2002/C 97/13)
of the Community rules applicable in the matter and on
whether the national rules should be disapplied. In those
circumstances, the Commission’s decision to exclude certain
expenditure by Italy from Community financing appears                    An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
unacceptable on account of its definitive nature, which does             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
not seem to take account of the question referred for a                  22 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
preliminary ruling in the pending Case C-231/00, referred to             Communities, represented by Jörn Sack and Miguel França,
above.                                                                   acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-156/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC — Credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate — Supplementary supervision — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-156/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/87/EC - Credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate - Supplementary supervision - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 331/36)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-293/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Energy Service Srl against Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento

text:
30.10.1999               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 314/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       ‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Trieste, First Civil Chamber, by order of 24 May 1999 in                     Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
     the case of Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze                      the rate of 0.75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
                                                                             No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                             consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
                           (Case C-291/99)                                   the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                             contributions of 1 %?’
                           (1999/C 314/04)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 May 1999 from the
                                                                             (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Tribunale di Trieste (District Court, Trieste), First Civil Chamb-
er, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 August
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Crossbow Srl and Ministero delle Finanze (Ministry of Finance),
on the following questions:
1. Has Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the EEC (1)
      preserved the extraterritorial legal status of the Port of
      Trieste resulting from Articles 1 to 20 of Annex VIII to the
      1947 Peace Treaty and the subsequent Memorandum of
      Understanding of 1954?
2. Does the question whether the free zones in the Port of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
      Trieste do or do not form part of the customs territory of             Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance)
      the Community fall to be decided in the light of Regulation            (23rd Three-Member Chamber), Athens, by a decision of
      (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) and the earlier Regulation                        that court of 26 July 1999 in the case of Athinaiki
      No 1496/68 (3)?                                                                Zithopiia (Athens Breweries) AF v Greek State
3. Does the territorial status of those zones not fall rather to
      be determined in the light of Council Directi-                                                   (Case C-294/99)
      ve 69/75/EEC (4) and the later Regulation No 2454/93 (5)?
                                                                                (1999/C 314/06)
( 1) Article 234 of the EC Treaty: now, after amendment, Article 307
     EC.
( 2) Council Regulation, OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 436.                          European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 86.                            Court of First Instance (23rd Three-Member Chamber), Athens,
( 5) Commission Regulation of 2.7.1993, OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993,              of 26 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
     p. 1.                                                                   1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Athinaiki
                                                                             Zithopiia (Athens Breweries) AE v Greek State on the following
                                                                             question:
                                                                             Does the term ‘withholding tax’ within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July
                                                                             1990 cover the case provided for in national legislation where,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                        on distribution of profits by a subsidiary public limited
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                         company or equivalent to its parent company, in determining
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Energy                    the taxable profits of the subsidiary, account is to be taken of
Service Srl against Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia                 total net profits, including income subject to special tax
                               di Trento                                     entailing extinction of the tax debt and also non-taxable
                                                                             income, whereas those two categories of income would not be
                                                                             taxable on the basis of the national legislation if they remained
                           (Case C-293/99)                                   with the subsidiary and were not distributed to the parent
                                                                             company?
                           (1999/C 314/05)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                    (1) OJ L 225 of 20.8.1990, p. 6.
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at
the Court Registry on 5 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Energy Service Srl v Direzione delle Entrate per
la Provincia di Trento on the following question:


title: Case T-387/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Portugal v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Global grant for local development in Portugal — Action for annulment — Expenditure actually incurred — Arbitration clause)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-387/07) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Action for annulment - Expenditure actually incurred - Arbitration clause)
   2011/C 113/22
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Flynn, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund towards the global grant for local development in Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-559/17: Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/43

         Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council
   (Case T-559/17)
   (2017/C 347/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant has played a part in supporting the Syrian regime. Thus, the following arguments are put forward against the findings made in the contested acts:

                           —

                           Mr Abdulkarim cannot be classified as an ‘influential businessman’;

                           —

                           He is not connected with the regime, has no influence over it and does not pose a true risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria;

                           —

                           His past involvement in Alkarim For Trade and Industry L.L.C. or in other companies active in the Middle Eastern petroleum, industrial oils, lubricants and greases sector could not mean either that he should be classified as an ‘important businessman’;

                           —

                           He does not reside and therefore does not carry on any activities in Syria.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the measures taken in the contested acts have such effects that they must be regarded as disproportionate in themselves.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to work, in that the disputed measures prevent the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his property and his economic freedom.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in that the contested acts were adopted with the aim of achieving objectives other than those stated, namely to remove the applicant from the market in order to favour other operators on that market, and so are vitiated by a misuse of powers.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is, in reality, purely a formality and probably was not thought through by the defendant.