C 151/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.5.98
Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,              Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in                 judgment on 12 March 1998, in which it:
which it:
                                                                     1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
1. declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed                  period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                     provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
     provisions to comply with Council Directive 92/74/                  Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common
     EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of                      rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
     Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of                        organisations and for the relevant activities of
     provisions laid down by law, regulation or                          maritime administrations, the Italian Republic has
     administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 thereof;
     products and laying down additional provisions on
     homeopathic veterinary medicinal products, the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations         2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     under Article 10(1) thereof;
                                                                     (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                     Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-59/98)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (98/C 151/06)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 12 March 1998
                                                                     An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      in Case C-313/97: Commission of the European                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             Communities v. Italian Republic (1)                     Communities on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, represented by Giuliano
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                     Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and JoseÂ F. Crespo
Directive 94/57/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                                                                     Carrillo, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                      prescribed period)
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                        (98/C 151/05)                                Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       comply with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of
                                                                         13 October 1994 amending Directive 88/301/EEC and
                                                                         Directive 90/388/EEC in particular with regard to
In Case C-313/97: Commission of the European                             satellite communications (1), the Grand Duchy of
Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro) v. Italian Republic                    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello) Ð application                  that directive,
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and/or
communicate the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary in order to comply with Council                 Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common                         costs.
rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime
administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20), the Italian           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty and under that Directive Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de                 paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.                Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
 ---pagebreak--- 16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/5
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives               (EEC) No 4055/86 and, in particular to Article 4(1). They
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               should therefore be adjusted in order to comply with the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period,         Regulation.
which is laid down in Article 4 of the Directive, expired
on 8 August 1995 without the Grand Duchy of                        (1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
provisions.
(1) OJ L 268, 19.10.1994, p. 15.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 3 March 1998 by Odette Nicos
                                                                   Petrides Co. Inc. against the judgment delivered on
                                                                   17 December 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-152/95 between Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. and the
Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission                        Commission of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                (Case C-64/98 P)
                           Republic
                       (Case C-62/98)                                                      (98/C 151/08)
                        (98/C 151/07)
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
                                                                   1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-152/95
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                   between Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. and the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Communities, represented by António Caeiro, Principal
                                                                   on 3 March 1998 by Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc.,
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                   represented by Nikolaos Vassilakakis and Evangelos
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   Vassilakakis, of the Thessalonica Bar, and Evangelia
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                   Pallioudi, of the Kavala Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56Ð58
                                                                   Rue Charles Martel.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that, by failing to denounce or adjust the
     agreements with Senegal, Cape Verde, Angola and Sao
                                                                   Ð grant the application for review and quash the
     Tome and Principe, so as to provide for fair, free and
                                                                       judgment (1),
     non-discriminatory access by all Community nationals
     to the cargo-shares due to Portugal, as provided for in
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December            Ð grant all the claims for damages in the action (2),
     1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide
     services to maritime transport between Member States
     and between Member States and third countries (1),            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations          proceedings before both the Court of First Instance
     under Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof and the EC Treaty,              and the Court of Justice.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð Insufficient reasoning in the contested judgment on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    questions which have a substantial bearing on the
                                                                       principle of proportionality,
The agreements between Portugal and the States referred            Ð manifestly incorrect application of the principle of
to in the application reserve the transport of cargo                   proportionality to the actual events in the second
between the parties to vessels flying the flag of one of the           tendering procedure,
parties or to vessels operated by persons or undertakings
having the nationality of one of the parties. Thus, vessels
operated by nationals of others are excluded from the              Ð distortion and misinterpretation of documentary
trade covered by the agreements. The Commission                        evidence by the Court of First Instance in that it
considers them to be cargo-sharing arrangements which                  manifestly gave those documents a different meaning
are subject to the provisions and obligations of Regulation            from their actual one when considering the principle


title: Case T-330/07: Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Kuiburi Fruit Canning v Council

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/53

         Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Kuiburi Fruit Canning v Council
   (Case T-330/07)
   (2007/C 269/95)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of 18 June 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand;

               —

               order that the Council of the European Communities pays the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (1) of 18 June 2007 in that it allegedly infringes Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/1996 (2) and Article 6(10)(2) of the WTO Agreement (3), by rejecting the applicant's request for an individual margin of dumping despite the fact that the applicant claims to be the only exporting producer having submitted the necessary information for the calculation of the individual margin.
   First, according to the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that there was more than one request for the calculation of an individual margin.
   Second, the applicant claims that, as there was only one exporting producer that requested the calculation of an individual margin, the Council did not have the discretion to determine whether an individual examination for the applicant would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time.
   Third, should the Council have such discretion, the applicant contends that the Council committed a manifest error of appraisal in finding that additional examination of one exporter would have been unduly burdensome, preventing the completion of the investigation in time.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Council has committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the calculation of an individual margin for the applicant would have been discriminatory towards other non-sampled exporters.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of 18 June 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 159, p. 14).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ( OJ L 56, p. 1).

      (3)  Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986-1994) — Annex 1 — Annex 1A — Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (WTO-GATT 1994) — Anti-dumping agreement (OJ L 336, p. 103).


title: Case T-553/11: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services relating to IT infrastructure and applications for the ECB — Rejection of the application — Action for annulment — Act open to challenge — Admissibility — Criteria for selecting candidates — Compliance of an application with the conditions laid down in the call for applications — Obligation to state reasons — Failure to exercise the power to ask for clarification in relation to an application — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of powers — Action for damages)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB
   (Case T-553/11) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services relating to IT infrastructure and applications for the ECB - Rejection of the application - Action for annulment - Act open to challenge - Admissibility - Criteria for selecting candidates - Compliance of an application with the conditions laid down in the call for applications - Obligation to state reasons - Failure to exercise the power to ask for clarification in relation to an application - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - Action for damages))
   2014/C 212/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and P. Pfeifhofer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application (i) for annulment of the decision of the ECB to reject the application of a temporary grouping of undertakings including the applicant to participate in a negotiated tendering procedure concerning information technology services, of the decision of the Procurement Review Body of the ECB to reject the appeal against that decision, and of all related decisions of the ECB and (ii) for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case C-346/17 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2017 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2016 in Case T-309/10 RENV, Christoph Klein v European Commission

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/15

         Appeal brought on 9 June 2017 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2016 in Case T-309/10 RENV, Christoph Klein v European Commission
   (Case C-346/17 P)
   (2017/C 300/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 in Case T-309/10 RENV;

               2.

               order the respondent to pay to the appellant EUR 1 562 662,30 plus interest from the date on which judgment is delivered, in the amount of eight percentage points above the base interest rate applicable on the date in question;

               3.

               find that the Commission, on the merits of the case, must compensate the appellant for the damage, as yet to be determined, which he claims to have suffered since 15 September 2006;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               5.

               in the alternative: set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 in Case T-309/10 RENV and refer the case back to the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following grounds:
   First, the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by misinterpreting the binding scope of the judgment of the Court of Justice and erred in law in assuming that the appellant could not claim any compensation with regard to his ‘effecto’ device on the basis of the inadmissibility of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C-120/14 P.
   Second, the General Court also infringed the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by failing to be bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law. In paragraph 95 of its judgment, the Court of Justice held that the original judgment under appeal was to be set aside in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action in that it sought that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant … . Contrary to this legal assessment, the General Court erred in law in finding that, even on the merits of the case, there was no entitlement to compensation as the substantive requirements had not been satisfied.
   Third, the General Court, contrary to Article 84(1) of its Rules of Procedure, rejected the claim that the Commission, due to its inaction in the safeguard clause procedure under Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42, had also infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the ground that this was an inadmissible new submission. This is an error in law due to the fact that the appellant had indeed already referred, in his application, to the principle of good administration which, in terms of content, corresponds to the principle of sound administration and to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Accordingly, there is no inadmissible new submission.
   Fourth, the General Court proceeded on the basis that the directive does not confer any rights on the appellant personally or on the company atmed AG. The appellant submits that this constitutes an infringement of EU law because both are addressees in a safeguard clause procedure and can rely on the principles of the free movement of goods as central, economically-affected persons.
   Fifth, the General Court erred in law in denying the existence of a causal link between the Commission’s unlawful conduct and the damage alleged. The General Court thereby distorted the facts of the case and erred in law in its classification of facts. Furthermore, the General Court thereby once again infringed Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42, failed to undertake a legal assessment and did not provide adequate grounds for its decision.
   Sixth, the General Court distorted the facts and evidence by infringing the principles of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights through its failure to have regard for the annexes COM RENV 1 and 2.
   Seventh, the General Court infringed the principles of the right to a fair hearing, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as Article 64(3)(d) of its Rules of Procedure and Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in that it failed to accede to the appellant’s request that the Commission be ordered to produce the documents relating to the safeguard clause.


title: Case C-390/04: Order of the President of the Court of  12 January 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten) — GöteborgsOperan AB v Skatteverket

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 January 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten) — GöteborgsOperan AB v Skatteverket
   (Case C-390/04) (1)

   (2006/C 154/29)

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.


title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-411/97)

text:
C 55/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.98
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                 Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber              of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and H. Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                                       Luxembourg
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                                (Case C-410/97)
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
                                                                                (98/C 55/30)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Ð declare that, by not charging value added tax on tolls            Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
     for the use of highway infrastructures, contrary to            the European Communities, represented by Marie
     Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/           Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
     EEC) of 17 May 1977 (1) the Kingdom of the                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
     the EC Treaty, and                                             Kirchberg.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Kingdom of Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on
                                                                         the minimum safety and health requirements for
The Commission Ð like the Netherlands Government Ð                       improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
takes the view that the tolls charged in the Netherlands                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
constitute consideration for the supply of a service within              obligations under that Directive,
the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
However, the Netherlands Government wrongly considers
that the bodies governed by public law charged with the             Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
operation of facilities for which a toll is levied are acting            costs.
in that regard as public authorities within the meaning of
the exception in Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive. In the
first place, a body governed by public law is taxable as a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
general rule and exemption is an exception to that rule.
The first subparagraph of Article 4(5) constitutes an
exception to Article 4(1) and (2). The fact that the second         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) constitute                  those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for
exceptions, in turn, to the first subparagraph does not             transposition expired on 31 December 1994.
detract from the exceptional nature of that first
subparagraph; on the contrary, it confirms that it provides         (1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
for a systematic exception. In the Netherlands                      (2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.
Government's argument, the rule and the exception
appear to be reserved. The fact that exemption constitutes
an exception is further confirmed by the fact that there
would have been no need for the exemptions under, in
particular, Articles 13 and 28 of the Sixth Directive if
bodies governed by public law had not been subject to the
VAT system. Any other interpretation would run counter              Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
to the general character of the Community VAT system.               of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
The charging of tolls is not inherent in the exercise of                                        Belgium
public authority, which includes the construction, making
available and maintenance of certain infrastructures such                                  (Case C-411/97)
as tunnels and bridges, but a separate activity forming
                                                                                (98/C 55/31)
part of the operation thereof. There is no reason why
there should be no question of acting as a public authority
in relation to supplies of gas etc. whilst such should be the
case as regards the operation of bridges and tunnels.               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                      Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                    Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) In regard to the building and demolition waste
                                                                             from which the chips are produced, operations
                                                                             are carried out already at an earlier stage than
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    burning which are to be regarded as a discarding
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    of the waste, namely operations (recycling
    Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on                          operations) to render the waste suitable for reuse
    the minimum safety and health requirements for                           (use as a fuel)?
    improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             If so, is an operation to render waste suitable for
    obligations under that Directive,
                                                                             reuse (recycling operation) to be regarded as an
                                                                             operation for recovery of waste only if that
                                                                             operation is expressly mentioned in Annex II B of
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                             Directive 75/442/EEC, or also if that operation is
                                                                             analogous to an operation mentioned in
                                                                             Annex II B?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (b) Wood chips constitute waste under contemporary
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                       thinking whereby it is of particular relevance
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for                   whether they may be recovered in an
transposition expired on 31 December 1994.                                   environmentally responsible manner for use as
                                                                             fuel without further processing?
(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
(2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.                                           (c)  The use of wood chips as a fuel is comparable
                                                                             with an accepted method of waste recovery?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November
1997 in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees,
Stichting    Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk                 Appeal brought on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           anonyme des traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) against
           Water Services Department, Gelderland                   the order made on 29 September 1997 by the First
                       (Case C-419/97)                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ anonyme
                          (98/C 55/32)                             de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-422/97 P)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                                        (98/C 55/33)
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang         An appeal against the order made on 29 September 1997
Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk              by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           European Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ
Water Services Department, Gelderland, on the following            anonyme de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
questions:                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ anonyme de traverses en
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that wood chips           beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA), represented by Jacques Manseau,
    undergo an operation listed in Annex II B to Directive         of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    75/442/EEC (1) that that substance has been discarded          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
    so as to enable it to be regarded as waste for the             Mathias Hardt.
    purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does           order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1997
    the reply to the question whether the use of wood              in Case T-83/97 (1) on the grounds of (i) erroneous
    chips as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting              interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty and, in
    discarding depend on whether:                                  particular, Articles 155, 169 and 86 thereof and of


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 1998 in Case C-213/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus): proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy (Excise duty on electricity - Rates of duty varying according to the method of producing electricity of domestic origin - Flat rate for imported electricity)

text:
C 209/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Gloria Calvo Díaz) and Kingdom of the Netherlands                    Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
(Agent: Marc Fierstra) Ð appeal against the judgment of              Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities              on 2 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 September
1995 in Case T-95/94 Sytraval and Brink's France v.
Commission [1995] ECR II-2651, seeking to have that                  The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings             precludes an excise duty which forms part of a national
being Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entreprises de                 system of taxation on sources of energy from being levied
Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's                 on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary
France SARL Ð the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez                 according to its method of production while being levied
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), H.                     on imported electricity, whatever its method of
Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                  production, at a flat rate which, although lower than the
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.                   highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin,
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,            leads, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges, C. O. Lenz,                 imposed on imported electricity.
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 April 1998 in which it:                                (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
1. Dismisses the appeal.
2. Orders       the    Commission       of    the    European
     Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
     Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.                                    of 28 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-120/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 16 of 20.1.1996.                                            the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances Sociales): Nicolas
                                                                         Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des EmployeÂs PriveÂs (1)
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in
                                                                     another Member State Ð Prior authorisation of the
                                                                           competent institution Ð Purchase of spectacles)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          (98/C 209/07)
                       of 2 April 1998
in Case C-213/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           (Language of the case: French)
the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus): proceedings brought by
                      Outokumpu Oy (1)
(Excise duty on electricity Ð Rates of duty varying                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
according to the method of producing electricity of                           published in the European Court Reports)
    domestic origin Ð Flat rate for imported electricity)
                        (98/C 209/06)                                In Case C-120/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances
                                                                     Sociales    (Social     Insurance     Arbitration     Council)
               (Language of the case: Finnish)                       (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                     pending before that tribunal between Nicolas Decker and
                                                                     Caisse de Maladie des EmployeÂs PriveÂs Ð on the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty Ð
         published in the European Court Reports)                    the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
                                                                     (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
In Case C-213/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
of the EC Treaty from the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus                     Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges;
(Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court), Finland, for a            G. Tesauro, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
court brought by Outokumpu Oy Ð on the interpretation                judgment on 28 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude national
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho              rules under which a social security institution of a
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Member State refuses to reimburse to an insured person
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,           on a flat-rate basis the cost of a pair of spectacles with


title: Case F-56/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/34

         Action brought on 22 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-56/12)
   2012/C 243/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: EurAA Anwälte für Arbeitnehmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application (i) for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to pay any pension contributions in respect of the applicant to the German pension insurance scheme or to the European Union pension scheme after the end of his contract for the period of his unemployment, and (ii) for the applicant to be included in the European Union pension scheme or for his pension rights to be transferred to the German pension insurance scheme.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of the European Commission’s Directorate-General of 24 February 2012 (No R/813/11);

               —

               order the defendant to include the applicant in the pension scheme for officials and other servants of the European Community for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2009 and to pay the appropriate contributions;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to apply to the German pension insurance scheme for retroactive insurance in respect of the applicant for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2009 and to pay statutory pension contributions for the applicant for German pension insurance;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that the defendant is obliged, from the date on which the applicant’s pension becomes payable, to pay to the applicant compensation for the amount by which the applicant’s pension is reduced in relation to the pension which he would receive if pension contributions at the statutory rate had been paid towards the State pension for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2009.


title: Case F-82/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Bandieri v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/46

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Bandieri v Commission
   (Case F-82/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/65)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9/11/2013, p. 52.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-459/98 P: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Application for review of classification in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New material fact — Equal treatment)

text:
C 161/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              2.6.2001
e Penale di Cagliari (Civil and Criminal District Court, Cagliari),        B. Uriarte Valiente, Avocats — application for an appeal
Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
before that court between Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl and                    Communities (First Chamber) of 14 October 1998 in Case
Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoria-                   T-224/97 Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v Commission [1998]
le No 24 della Sardegna, Ente Regionale per l’Assistenza                   ECR-SC I-A-581 and II-1741, seeking to have that order set
Tecnica in Agricoltura (ERSAT) — on the interpretation of                  aside: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of                      J. Guerra Fernandez and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court
12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as
structures (OJ 1985 L 93, p. 1) and of Article 5(5) of Council             President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving                   Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ 1991 L 218, p. 1)            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2001,
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      in which it:
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and F. Macken (Rappor-
teur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal           1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        European Communities of 14 October 1998 in Case
11 January 2001, in which it has ruled:                                          T-224/97 Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v Commission;
                                                                           2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European
The last subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC)                Communities of 24 October 1996 rejecting Mrs Martı́nez del
No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of                        Peral Cagigal’s request for a review of her classification in grade,
agricultural structures and the last subparagraph of Article 5(5) of             upheld by the decision of the Commission of 29 April 1997
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on                           rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 January 1997;
improving the efficiency of agricultural structures may not be relied
on before a national court by limited companies seeking to obtain the      3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
status of farmers practising farming as their main occupation where              all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
the legislature of a Member State has not adopted the provisions                 and the Court of Justice.
necessary for their implementation in the national legal system.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999.
( 1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-464/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         of 11 January 2001                                the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)]:
                                                                           Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Friedrich Ste-
in Case C-459/98 P: Isabel Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v                          fan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich (1)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (National rules prohibiting the registration of mortgages in
                                                                           foreign currencies — Breach of that prohibition before
(Appeal — Officials — Application for review of classifi-                  Community law entered into force in Austria — Interpret-
cation in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New                     ation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
                material fact — Equal treatment)                           — Whether Community law can operate to remedy the
                                                                                registration)
                           (2001/C 161/03)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/04)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-459/98 P: Isabel Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal, an                 In Case C-464/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht für
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by A. Creus and                Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), Austria,


title: Case T-681/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/23

      Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) v Commission
      (Case T-681/16)
      (2016/C 441/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) (Westerlo, Belgium) (represented by: N. Reypens, C. Docclo and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  join the present case and Case T-131/16 on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the judgment;

                  —

                  admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

                  —

                  annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision (1);

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the legal acts that provide for the alleged Sate aid and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (2).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an error of fact in the description of the reference system, a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of it and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of an economic advantage, error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessing the selectivity necessary to characterise the disputed regime as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and an error of assessment in analysing the mechanisms of the disputed regime.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the analysis of the justification of the conditions for the application of the disputed regime.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment when evaluating the alleged advantage derived from the disputed regime and a lack of precision in the examination of the disputed regime.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the taxpayers’ legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

         (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61)

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9)


title: Case T-674/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — SEA v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Obligation to recover aid granted by the public operator of an airport to a subsidiary management company — Liquidation of the company — Creation of a new management company — Commission decision to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure in order to assess the existence of any economic continuity between the two companies — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Manifest inadmissibility of the main application — Inadmissibility — Lack of urgency)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — SEA v Commission
   (Case T-674/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Obligation to recover aid granted by the public operator of an airport to a subsidiary management company - Liquidation of the company - Creation of a new management company - Commission decision to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure in order to assess the existence of any economic continuity between the two companies - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Manifest inadmissibility of the main application - Inadmissibility - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 026/43)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti, J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, the suspension of European Commission Decision C(2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the establishment of the company Airport Handling [SA.21420 (2014/NN) — Italy — Establishment of Airport Handling].

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-388/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2014  — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2014 — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin
   (Case C-388/14)
   2014/C 372/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Article 52(3) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax, ‘EStG’), in so far as the cause of the reinstatement of an amount corresponding to losses of a foreign permanent establishment previously taken into account by way of a tax reduction is the sale of that permanent establishment to another company limited by shares within the same group as the seller, and not the making of profits?

               2.

               Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be understood as precluding a provision such as Article 23(1)(a) of the DBA Deutschland/Österreich 2000 (2000 Double taxation convention between Germany and Austria) — according to which income from Austria is to be exempt from the basis of assessment for German taxation if that income can be taxed in Austria — if losses accrued in an Austrian permanent establishment of a German company limited by shares can no longer be taken into account in Austria because the permanent establishment is sold to an Austrian company limited by shares belonging to the same group as the German company?


title: Case C-198/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 April 2015 — Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 April 2015 — Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-198/15)
   (2015/C 228/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

   The Questions referred relate to Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006, and to heading 8713 therein.

               1.

               Do the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean ‘only’ for disabled persons?

               2.

               What is the meaning of the words ‘disabled persons’; in particular:

                           a)

                           is their meaning confined to persons who have a disability in addition to a limitation on their ability to walk or to walk easily; or does it include persons whose only limitation is on their ability to walk or to walk easily?

                           b)

                           does ‘disabled’ connote more than a marginal limitation on some ability?

                           c)

                           is a temporary limitation such as results from a broken leg capable of being a disability?

               3.

               Does the CNEN of 4 January 2005 (2005/C1/03) (2), in excluding scooters fitted with separate steering columns, alter the meaning of the heading 8713?

               4.

               Does the possibility of use of a vehicle by a person without a disability affect the tariff classification if it can be said that the vehicle has special features which alleviate the effects of a disability?

               5.

               If suitability for use by non-disabled persons is a relevant consideration, to what extent should the disadvantages of such use also be a relevant consideration in determining such suitability?

      (1)  OJ L 301, p. 1.

      (2)  Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union OJ C 137, p. 1.


title: Case T-554/13: Action brought on 16 October 2013 — Hungary v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/22

         Action brought on 16 October 2013 — Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-554/13)
   2014/C 24/39
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 5029 of 6 August 2013 on the partial repayment of national financial assistance granted to producer organisations for operational programmes carried out in Hungary in 2010.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Commission exceeded its powers and breached the relevant provisions of European Union law in establishing the amount of the partial repayment to Hungary of the national financial assistance granted in 2010 to producer organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector.
   The applicant argues that European Union law does not allow the Commission, in its decision on the partial Community repayment of the national financial assistance granted pursuant to Article 103e of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to producer organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector, to grant the repayment of only those amounts which were described as ‘estimated’ or ‘predicted’ by Hungary in its application for the grant of national assistance.
   The applicant takes the view that, under Article 103e of Regulation No 1234/2007, the Commission’s authorisation for national assistance relates to the grant of aid and not to the establishment, by the Commission, of an upper limit on the assistance which can be granted. According to the applicant, such an upper limit is unequivocally laid down by Regulation No 1234/2007, which provides that national assistance may not exceed 80 % of financial contributions to the operating funds of the members or of producer organisations. Nor do the rules on the partial Community repayment of national assistance allow the Commission, when authorising such partial repayment, to set as an upper limit for repayment the amount which the Member State indicated to the Commission in its application, either as the total amount of assistance or as the amount of assistance envisaged for certain producer organisations, particularly where the Hungarian Government stated that those amounts were merely projected or estimated amounts.
   Moreover, the applicant states that the Commission is entitled to verify that the assistance actually paid did not exceed the above-mentioned upper limit of 80 % and that the repayment requested does not exceed 60 % of the assistance granted, but not to set as an upper limit for repayment the amounts given in the application for authorisation, especially when that application stresses the provisional or estimated character of the data. Where — for certain reasons — the amount of the national assistance granted to a given producer organisation changes during the year, partial Community repayment will be granted on the basis of the amount actually paid, provided that the requirements of European Union law in that regard are fulfilled.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products.


title: Case T-383/17: Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Hansol Paper v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/31

         Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Hansol Paper v Commission
   (Case T-383/17)
   (2017/C 269/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, B. Servais and A. Tel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(11) and 17(2) of the Basic Regulation (1) and unlawfully calculated the applicant’s dumping margin.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Commission resorted to sampling pursuant to Article 17 of the Basic Regulation despite denying having done so, thus violating Article 17(2) of the Basic Regulation as the applicant was not given the opportunity to submit its comments on the proposed sample.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the Commission wrongly and unlawfully calculated the applicant’s dumping margin thereby violating Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 9(4), second paragraph of the Basic Regulation as well as the basic principle of good administration.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the Commission violated Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 9(4), second paragraph of the Basic Regulation as the anti-dumping duty imposed exceeds the amount of dumping found in the investigation.

                           —

                           The applicant further alleges that the Commission violated the principle of good administration in that it calculated the applicant’s ad valorem dumping margin wrongly and unlawfully by using a constructed CIF value rather than the actual CIF value.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Articles 2(9) and 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously deducting undue allowances for sales of small roles made from Jumbo rolls sourced by Schades Ltd. from EU producers.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously constructing in two instances the normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 1(1), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the EU Courts and of the WTO, the Commission’s past practice and the principles of fair comparison and of equal treatment in the injury margin calculation.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Commission violated Articles 1(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the Basic Regulation as it included resale of small rolls (product not concerned) in the injury margin calculation.

                           —

                           The applicant further alleges that the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the EU Courts and the WTO, the Commission’s past practice and the principles of fair comparison and of equal treatment as it applied by analogy Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation for the purposes of the injury margin calculation.

                           —

                           The applicant lastly claims that the Commission violated Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the Basic Regulation as it failed to properly assess the impact of the negative undercutting margin found for the product concerned.

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


title: Case T-452/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — ClientEarth v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/37

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — ClientEarth v Council
   (Case T-452/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), (represented by: S. Hockman QC, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

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

               —

               Declare the Council in violation of Article 294(6) TFEU for failure to inform the European Parliament fully of the reasons which led it to adopt its first reading position;

               —

               Annul the contested decision of 26 July 2010 (Ref. 15/c/01/10), by which the Council provided a negative reply under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, thereby withholding document No 6865/09;

               —

               Order the defendant to provide access to the requested document; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of the Council’s decision of 26 July 2010, by which the defendant failed to provide the applicant access to document No 6865/09 which contains an opinion of the Legal Service of the defendant concerning the Commission’s proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and, in particular, the European Parliament’s recommended amendments contained in the Cashman report.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, he contested decision violates Article 4(2) second indent of Regulation (EC) No1049/2001 and Article 294(6) TFEU. The disclosure of the requested legal advice would not undermine the protection of legal advice as it would not undermine the Council’s interest in requesting and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive legal advice. The first reading stage of the legislative procedure should imply disclosure of legal advice on admissibility of European Parliament’s proposed amendments.

               Secondly, the contested decision violates article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Article 4(3) is not applicable to the protection of legal advice. Even if it were, the disclosure of the requested advice would not seriously undermine the Council’s decision-making process. Disclosure would not undermine the Legal Service’s capacity to represent the Council’s position in court proceedings free from all external influence as well as the independence of the Council’s Legal Service, nor impede internal discussions of the Council on the Parliament’s amendments.

               In addition, the contested decision violates Article 4(2) last indent and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for failure to assess whether there is an overriding public interest in disclosure and to provide a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal. The Council does not balance the protection of legal advice against the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming from increased openness and of the fact that access to the requested advice would enable citizens to participate more closely in the recast process of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which concerns the public at large since it provides it with the basis on which to exercise its right to have access to documents held by EU institutions.

               Finally, the contested decision violates Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to provide partial access to the requested document.

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


title: Case T-78/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE brunes — Earlier Community word and figurative marks La LIBERTAD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)
   (Case T-78/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE brunes - Earlier Community word and figurative marks La LIBERTAD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 233/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Walicka, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) (represented by: H. McKenzie and B. Pikolin, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2109/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-273/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/31

         Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)
   (Case T-273/12)
   2012/C 243/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2012 in Case R 2150/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Ab in den Urlaub’ for services in classes 35, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 692 286

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-306/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/21

         Action brought on 23 June 2015 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-306/15)
   (2015/C 311/26)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, L.Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex 1 to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 30 September 2013.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10.


title: Case C-622/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 13C and 20 — Supply of immovable property — Right to opt for taxation — Right to deduction — Adjustment of deductions — Recovery of sums due following adjustment of a VAT deduction — Taxable person liable for payment — Taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction and who is extraneous to the taxed transaction which gave rise to the deduction)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV
   (Case C-622/11) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 13C and 20 - Supply of immovable property - Right to opt for taxation - Right to deduction - Adjustment of deductions - Recovery of sums due following adjustment of a VAT deduction - Taxable person liable for payment - Taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction and who is extraneous to the taxed transaction which gave rise to the deduction)
   2013/C 344/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Pactor Vastgoed BV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 20 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment of deductions previously made — Supply of a property by a supplier to a real estate company — Supply dealt with by the parties, although not by the applicable legislation, as a taxable transaction

      Operative part of the judgment

   Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the recovery of amounts due following the adjustment of a value added tax deduction from a taxable person other than the person who applied that deduction.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case T-390/06: Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/36

         Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)
   (Case T-390/06)
   (2007/C 20/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 September 2006 in Case R 356/2006-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a pallet consisting of an elongated rectangular platform or base and an equally elongated flange, both ornamented with round holes, which are both at a 90 degree angle to each other, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 et 42 — application No 4 073 722

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark is sufficiently distinctive to be registered.


title: Case T-19/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Boliden and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Fines — Limitation period — Cooperation)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Boliden and Others v Commission
   (Case T-19/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Fines - Limitation period - Cooperation)
   2010/C 179/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Boliden AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB, formerly Boliden Fabrication AB (Västerås, Sweden); Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA, formerly Boliden Cuivre & Zinc SA (Liège, Belgium) (represented: initially by C. Wetter and O. Rislund and subsequently by C. Wetter and M. Johansson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents)

      Re:

   Application (i) for annulment of Article 1(a) to (c) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) in so far as it was thereby found that the applicants participated in an infringement between 1 July 1995 and 27 August 1998 and between 10 December 1998 and 7 October 1999; (ii) for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

               3.

               Orders Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB and Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-422/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/30/EC — Air transport — Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports — Adoption by a Member State of a measure liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive during the transposition period)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-422/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/30/EC - Air transport - Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports - Adoption by a Member State of a measure liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive during the transposition period)
   (2007/C 183/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Benyon and M. Huttunen, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Wimmer and A. Hubert, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC — Measures taken by a Member State during the period laid down for implementation of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40) which are liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the Directive — National legislation limiting night flights of certain types of civil subsonic jet aircraft
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting the Royal Decree of 14 April 2002 regulating night flights of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports and under the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-444/09 and C-456/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de A Coruña (Spain) and the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de Pontevedra (Spain)) — Rosa María Gavieiro Gavieiro (C-444/09), Ana María Iglesias Torres (C-456/09) v Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria de la Xunta de Galicia (Social Policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Principle of non-discrimination — Application of the framework agreement to the interim staff of an Autonomous Community — National rules establishing different treatment in respect of the award of a length-of-service increment on the basis of the temporary nature of the employment relationship — Obligation to recognise, with retrospective effect, the right to the length-of-service increment)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de A Coruña (Spain) and the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de Pontevedra (Spain)) — Rosa María Gavieiro Gavieiro (C-444/09), Ana María Iglesias Torres (C-456/09) v Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria de la Xunta de Galicia
   (Joined Cases C-444/09 and C-456/09) (1)

   (Social Policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Principle of non-discrimination - Application of the framework agreement to the interim staff of an Autonomous Community - National rules establishing different treatment in respect of the award of a length-of-service increment on the basis of the temporary nature of the employment relationship - Obligation to recognise, with retrospective effect, the right to the length-of-service increment)
   2011/C 55/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring courts

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de A Coruña and Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 3 de Pontevedra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rosa María Gavieiro Gavieiro (C-444/09), Ana María Iglesias Torres (C-456/09)

      Defendant: Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria de la Xunta de Galicia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo de A Coruña — Interpretation of Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Principle of non-discrimination — Meaning of ‘different length-of-service qualifications’ — National legislation establishing different treatment in relation to the award of a length-of-service increment purely on the basis of the temporary nature of the contract

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A member of the interim staff of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, falls within the scope ratione personae of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, and that of the framework agreement on fixed term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is in the Annex to that directive.

               2.

               A length-of-service increment such as that at issue in the main proceedings is, as an employment condition, covered by clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70. Consequently, fixed-term workers may contest treatment which, with regard to payment of that increment, is less favourable than that which is given to permanent workers in a comparable situation and for which there is no objective justification. The temporary nature of the employment relationship of certain public servants is not, in itself, capable of constituting an objective ground within the meaning of that clause of the framework agreement.

               3.

               The mere fact that a national provision such as Article 25(2) of Law 7/2007 on the basic regulations relating to public servants (Ley 7/2007 del Estatuto Básico del empleado público) of 12 April 2007 contains no reference to Directive 1999/70 does not preclude that provision from being regarded as a national measure transposing the directive.

               4.

               Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Directive 1999/70, is unconditional and sufficiently precise for interim civil servants to be able to rely on it as against the State before a national court in order to obtain recognition of their entitlement to length-of-service increments, such as the three-yearly increments at issue in the main proceedings, in respect of the period starting with the date by which Member States should have transposed Directive 1999/70 and ending with the date of entry into force of the national law transposing that directive into the domestic law of the Member State concerned, subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of national law concerning limitation.

               5.

               Even though the national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 contains a provision which, whilst recognising the right of interim civil servants to be paid the three-yearly length-of-service increments, excludes the retrospective application of that right, the competent authorities of the Member State concerned are obliged, under European Union law and in relation to a provision of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Directive 1999/70, having direct effect, to give that right to payment of the increments retrospective effect to the date by which the Member States should have transposed Directive 1999/70.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


               29.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/14

         Action brought on 4 September 2012 by the Government of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-9/12)
   2012/C 369/12
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 September 2012 by the Government of Iceland, represented by Jóhanna Bryndís Bjarnadóttir, Counsellor at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, acting as agent, Haraldur Steinþórsson, Legal Officer at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, acting as co-agent, and Dóra Sif Tynes, Attorney at Law, acting as Counsel.
   The Applicant seeks a declaration by the EFTA Court that:

               1.

               Article 5 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is annulled;

               2.

               Article 6 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is void as concerns the reference to Article 5; and

               3.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority is ordered to pay the full legal costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant, the Government of Iceland, seeks a partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 261/12/COL, adopted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) on 4 July 2012 the contested decision. The contested decision was adopted following ESA's Decision No 418/10/COL of 3 November 2010 to open a formal investigation procedure.

               —

               The case concerns the application of Article 61(1) EEA and the EFTA Surveillance Authority's State Aid Guidelines on State aid elements in the sales of land and buildings by public authorities, on the sale of real estate in the former US military area in the Reykjanes peninsula by the Icelandic State.

               —

               The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           failed to demonstrate on the basis of facts or evidence that the real estate was sold below its market value. Therefore, the sale did not result in an economic advantage to the buyer and State aid is not present,

                           —

                           failed to investigate the sale adequately and manifestly erred in the assessment of the alleged state aid, and

                           —

                           failed to state adequate reasons in the contested decision.