title: Case T-237/07: Action brought on 27 June 2007 — CityLine Hungary Kft. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/41

         Action brought on 27 June 2007 — CityLine Hungary Kft. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-237/07)
   (2007/C 211/78)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): CityLine Hungary Kft. (Vecsés, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Menyhei, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 2c(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 of 30 March 2007 published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 4 April 2007 invalid, and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including legal fees.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the validity of Article 2c(1) of Regulation EC No 1702/2003 introduced by Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 (1). The Article deals with the continued operation of certain aircrafts registered by Member States.
   The applicant, which is engaged in the transport of various goods by air, claims that the contested provisions of Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 are of direct and individual concern to it.
   By way of grounds the applicant submits that Article 2c of Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 infringes the general principle of legal certainty. The contested Regulation makes the operation of aircraft subject to a past event, that is to say, it requires registration to have been effected before the accession of the Member State in question to the European Union, a circumstance which in the present case was obviously not foreseeable by the relevant persons.
   The applicant submits further that the contested Article of Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 infringes the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 EC. In that connection the applicant argues that the contested provision constitutes a disproportionate restriction for persons whose aircraft were placed on a Member State's register after accession. The Article is irrelevant in terms of flight safety and entails unnecessary rules and conditions thereby going further than is necessary to achieve the objectives contained in the EC Treaty.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 of 30 March 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (OJ 2007 L 94, p. 3).


title: Case C-423/06: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-423/06) (1)

   (2008/C 92/46)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV v Commission of the European Communities (Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) - Right to be heard - Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) - Exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in Flanders)

text:
2.10.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/13
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 19 July 1999
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
in Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrión v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                             in Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the
                tests — Knowledge of languages)
                                                                             (Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) —
                                                                             Right to be heard — Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
                           (1999/C 281/24)                                   Article 86(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 52 of
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
                                                                             — Exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in
                                                                                Flanders)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrión, residing in Barcelona                                       (1999/C 281/25)
(Spain), represented by Marianne Droinet, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Albert Moro, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Council of the European
Union (Agents: Thérèse Blanchet and Ana Ramı́rez Fueyo) —
application for annulment of the decision of the selection                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
board in competition CONS/C/374 dated 18 March 1997 not
to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition, of the
initial decision of that selection board dated 19 December
1996 and of the tests held on 26 April 1997 — the Court of                   In Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij, established
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,                    at Vilvoorde (Belgium), represented by Francis Herbert and
President, and C.W. Bellamy and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                 Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 July 1999, in which it:                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue
                                                                             Charles Martel, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: Wouter Wils) — application for annulment of Com-
1. Orders that there is no need to give a decision on the application        mission Decision 97/606/EC of 26 June 1997 pursuant to
     for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition     Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty on the exclusive right to
     CONS/C/374 dated 19 December 1996;                                      broadcast television advertising in Flanders (OJ 1997 L 244,
                                                                             p. 18) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended
                                                                             Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
2. Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition                 C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges;
     CONS/C/374 dated 18 March 1997 refusing to admit the                    A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     applicant to the tests in that competition;                             on 8 July 1999, in which it:
3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim;                                     1. Dismisses the application;
4. Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                      2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-77/12 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2012 by Deutsche Post AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post AG v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/18

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2012 by Deutsche Post AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post AG v Commission
   (Case C-77/12 P)
   2012/C 118/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund und T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, UPS Europe NV/SA, UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 in its entirety;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present appeal, the central question is whether and under which conditions a Commission decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation 659/1999/EC constitutes a decision which may be challenged under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. In particular, the question arises whether such a decision to initiate the procedure produces autonomous binding legal effects over and above a previous decision to initiate the procedure which allegedly dealt with the same aid measures.
   The General Court denied that such an action is admissible, in essence, on the basis that the 2007 decision to initiate the procedure in Case 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — which is challenged in the present case — concerns the same measures which had already formed the subject-matter of a 1999 decision to initiate the procedure in Case C 61/99 (ex NN 153/96) prior to the contested decision to initiate the procedure. The fact that in the investigation procedure which preceded the formal main investigation procedure in the present case the Commission had already five years earlier issued a negative decision within the meaning of Article 7(5) of Regulation 659/1999/EC has no influence on this assessment, as that negative decision closed the previous investigation procedure only in part.
   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal:

               1.

               In the judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to recognise that the contested 2007 decision to initiate the procedure produced autonomous legal effects as that decision to initiate the procedure related to aid measures which went far beyond those to which the Commission objected in its 1999 decision to initiate the procedure. Furthermore, the main investigation procedure opened in 1999 was entirely closed by a 2002 negative decision (2002/753/EC); thus the 1999 decision to initiate the procedure could not have any further legal effects. In denying the admissibility of the application in question, the General Court infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, since every decision which has autonomous legal effects must, under this provision, be open to review.

               2.

               Second, the General Court erred in law by misconstruing the scope of the Commission’s infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and sound administration and their effects on the present investigation procedure. The General Court did not consider it to be an error in law that the Commission — without making it sufficiently clear to the Federal Government and the appellant — did not subsequently consider the formal investigation procedure which was opened in 1999 to be exhaustively closed and reopened that procedure five years after its formal closure.

               3.

               Third, the fact that the General Court denied the appellant in the present case any direct legal remedy against the 2007 decision to initiate the procedure constitutes a refusal of judicial protection, which directly contravenes the appellant’s fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 6(1) TEU together with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6(3) TEU together with the first sentence of Article 6(1) the European Convention on Human Rights.

               4.

               Fourth, as regards the last two points set out above, which were not mentioned at all in the judgment under appeal, the General Court neglected to give at least a few explanations in the grounds of its judgment. This omission by the General Court infringes its obligation to state reasons in judgments which stems from the principle of the rule of law.


title: Case T-912/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/34

         Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)
   (Case T-912/16)
   (2017/C 063/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘RROFA’ — Application for registration No 12 699 534

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2392/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-47/17: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/28

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)
   (Case T-47/17) (1)

   (2017/C 202/47)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case C-254/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura, Meeting Hotel, Hotel Blanc, Hotel Clyton, Business srl v Comune di Casoria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/12/EC — Article 15(a) — Waste disposal costs not allocated on the basis of actual production of waste — Compatibility with the polluter pays principle)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura, Meeting Hotel, Hotel Blanc, Hotel Clyton, Business srl v Comune di Casoria
   (Case C-254/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/12/EC - Article 15(a) - Waste disposal costs not allocated on the basis of actual production of waste - Compatibility with the ‘polluter pays’ principle)
   2009/C 220/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura, Meeting Hotel, Hotel Blanc, Hotel Clyton, Business srl

      Defendant: Comune di Casoria

      Intervener: Azienda Speciale Igiene Ambientale (ASIA) SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) — National system not allocating the costs of waste disposal on the basis of the production of waste or its possession with a view to handling by a waste collector or an undertaking responsible for its disposal — Compatibility with the ‘polluter pays’ principle

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(a) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste must, as Community law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a tax or charge calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection.
   It is, however, incumbent upon the national court to review, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether the tax for the disposal of private solid urban waste at issue in the main proceedings results in the allocation to certain ‘holders’, in the case in point hotel establishments, of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case F-4/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008  — Skoulidi v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States — Making available an EU official to the Greek administration — Refusal — Action for damages — Non-pecuniary loss — Pre-litigation procedure — Admissibility — Substantive conditions giving rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Skoulidi v Commission
   (Case F-4/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States - Making available an EU official to the Greek administration - Refusal - Action for damages - Non-pecuniary loss - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Substantive conditions giving rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community)
   (2008/C 92/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eleni-Eleftheria Skoulidi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.D. Martin and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the appointing authority of 28 March 2006, refusing to allow her secondment to the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs under the Scheme of Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 44.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-315/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (Free movement of capital — Tax on revenue from capital — Revenue from capital of Austrian origin: tax rate of 25 % in discharge or rate equal to half of the average tax rate on aggregate income — Income from capital originating in another Member State: normal tax rate)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-315/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Tax on revenue from capital - Revenue from capital of Austrian origin: tax rate of 25 % in discharge or rate equal to half of the average tax rate on aggregate income - Income from capital originating in another Member State: normal tax rate)
   (2004/C 228/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-315/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Anneliese Lenz and Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol — on the interpretation of Articles 73b et 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — the Court (First Chamber), composed: of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 73b and 73d(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now, respectively, Articles 56 EC and 58(1) and (3) EC) preclude legislation which allows only the recipients of revenue from capital of Austrian origin to choose between a tax with discharging effect and ordinary income tax with the application of a rate reduced by half, while providing that revenue from capital originating in another Member State must be subject to ordinary income tax without any reduction in the rate.

               2.

               Refusal to grant the recipients of revenue from capital originating in another Member State the tax advantages granted to recipients of revenue from capital of Austrian origin cannot be justified by the fact that revenue from companies established in another Member State is subject to low taxation in that State.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-465/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Right of establishment — Occupation of security guard — Private security services — Oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic — Authorisation from the Prefetto — Place of business — Minimum number of employees — Lodging of a guarantee — Administrative control of the pricing of services provided)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-465/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom to provide services - Right of establishment - Occupation of security guard - Private security services - Oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic - Authorisation from the Prefetto - Place of business - Minimum number of employees - Lodging of a guarantee - Administrative control of the pricing of services provided)
   (2008/C 51/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and E. Montaguti, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Requirements for the exercise of the occupation of private security guard — Obligation to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic — Obligation to obtain an authorisation from the Prefetto
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in relation to the Consolidated Law on public security (Testo unico delle leggi di pubblica sicurezza), approved by Royal Decree No 773 of 18 June 1931, as amended:

                           —

                           by providing that it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

                           —

                           by providing that private security activities may be pursued by service providers established in other Member States only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto, without requiring account to be taken of the obligations to which those service providers are already subject in the Member States of origin, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

                           —

                           by providing that that authorisation is to have limited territorial validity and that the granting of such authorisation is to be subject to consideration of the number and size of security undertakings already operating in the area in question, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

                           —

                           by providing that private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

                           —

                           by providing that the staff of those undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work, without requiring account to be taken of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

                           —

                           by providing that private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or a maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

                           —

                           by providing that those undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC; and

                           —

                           by providing that the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-524/08: Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/20

         Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-524/08)
   (2009/C 19/36)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Yerrell and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC or, in any case, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for transposition of the Directive expired on 10 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1.


title: Case T-150/16: Action brought on 6 April 2016 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/57

      Action brought on 6 April 2016 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)
      (Case T-150/16)
      (2016/C 211/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and C. Menebröcker, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘ECOLAB’ — Application for registration No 1 180 255

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 644/2015-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of EUTMR;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 75 first sentence of EUTMR.


title: Case C-462/10 P: Order of the Court of 13 January 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environment Agency (EEA) (Appeals — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Supply of computing advice services — Rejection of the tender — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Selection and award criteria — Confusion of the criteria — Weighting of the criteria — Full copy of the evaluation report — Inadequate statement of reasons)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/2

         Order of the Court of 13 January 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environment Agency (EEA)
   (Case C-462/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Supply of computing advice services - Rejection of the tender - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Selection and award criteria - Confusion of the criteria - Weighting of the criteria - Full copy of the evaluation report - Inadequate statement of reasons)
   2012/C 109/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T-331/06 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the European Environment Agency of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006/118-125101) and to award the public contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Error of assessment

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-318/09 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2009 by A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-189/03 ASM Brescia SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/37

         Appeal brought on 11 August 2009 by A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-189/03 ASM Brescia SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-318/09 P)
   2009/C 267/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, A. Giardina, C. Croff and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment in Case T-189/03 (‘the judgment’) on the ground that it infringes Community law, in particular Article 87 of the EC Treaty, and fails to state adequate reasons, in so far as it classifies the three-year income tax exemption as State aid;

               —

               set aside the judgment on the ground that it applies Community law in a manner that is incorrect and contradictory, in so far as it does not classify the three-year income tax exemption as existing aid;

               —

               set aside the judgment on the ground that it infringes Community law, in so far as it finds that the order for recovery in the decision is lawful; and, accordingly,

               —

               annul the Decision (1) in so far as it finds that the transitional scheme ensuring fiscal continuity for public utilities with majority public shareholdings constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market (Article 2 of the Decision) and/or in so far as it orders Italy to recover that aid from the beneficiaries (Article 3 of the Decision);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main argument

               1.

               By its first ground of appeal, A2A SpA alleges that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 87(1) EC and failed to state adequate reasons, in so far as the judgment classifies the three-year income tax exemption as State aid. In particular, according to the appellant, the Commission failed to demonstrate in the Decision that, in the circumstances of the case, two of the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) EC, namely the distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States, are satisfied. Moreover, the Court of First Instance failed properly to verify the assumptions on which the Commission based its conclusion that the measure in question was to be classified as ‘aid’, which it was, in fact, required to do in accordance with its duty to carry out a ‘comprehensive’ review imposed by Community case-law.

               2.

               By its second ground of appeal, in the alternative, the appellant alleges infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 88 EC and of its duty to state reason and, at the same time, seeks the annulment of the judgment in so far as it classifies the three-year income tax exemption as ‘new aid’. In particular, the Court of First Instance, blindly repeating the Commission’s findings, did not accept that the three-year exemption measures in favour of municipal undertakings converted into public limited companies may be regarded as ‘existing aid’. Instead, it reached the opposite conclusion, considering that the tax exemption scheme in question, which was introduced before the entry into force of the EC Treaty, also applied to municipal undertakings, which, as the Commission itself accepted, constitute the same economic entities as the companies set up under Law No 142/90.

               3.

               Finally, by its third ground of appeal, A2A submits, in the further alternative, that the judgment should be set aside on the ground that it infringes Community law and Community law principles, in so far as it finds that the order for recovery in the Decision is lawful. According to the appellant, the judgment should be set aside in that, in contrast with previous decisions of the Community judicature, it upholds the lawfulness of the general order for recovery in the Decision and, essentially, finds that the national authorities do not have any discretion whatsoever in the matter.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).


title: Case T-360/12: Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (Device of a chequer-board pattern)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/11

         Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (Device of a chequer-board pattern)
   (Case T-360/12)
   2012/C 319/20
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany)

      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 16 May 2012 in case R 1854/2011-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings; and

               —

               Order Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the OHIM Cancellation Division and Boards of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a device of a checked pattern for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6587851

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed its request for declaration of invalidity against the CTM on the basis of absolute grounds, namely Article 52(1)(a) in connection with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d), (e)(iii) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on absolute grounds under Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 29 May 1997 by the Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-204/97)

text:
12 . 7. 97                      EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 212/23
            terms or conditions not expressly mentioned                       Action brought on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of
            therein ?                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
     ( b ) If so :                                                                                ( Case C-203/97)
             (i)       Can such terms or conditions be formulated                                           ( 97/C 212/43 )
                       independently by the authorities of a Member
                       State ?
                                                                              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             ( ii ) May quantitative conditions — whether or
                                                                              Communities on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                       not based on Decision No 128 ( ] ) — relating
                                                                              European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
                       to the activities pursued in the different
                                                                              Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                       Member States, turnover and number of
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                       employees be imposed with regard to the
                                                                              Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
                       words ' undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                              254, Kirchberg.
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation
                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                                                                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
             ( iii ) In that context may the conditon be imposed
                       that the activities of the employer in the             — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                       different Member States be exactly the same ?                  period the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission       Directive     94/1 3/EC ( ! ), the  Federal
             ( iv ) If the conditions mentioned in ( ii ) and ( iii )                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                       cannot be imposed, what conditions may be                      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and
                       imposed ?
             ( v ) Must such conditions — where imposed — be                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                       communicated to the employer before the
                       commencement of the employment ?                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support;
      (c ) If not:                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                              put forward in Case C-l 86/97 ( 2 ); the relevant time limit
              (i )     Do the implementing institutions have a                expired on 1 January 1995 .
                       discrection in interpreting the words
                       'undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                               (') OJ No L 92 , 9 . 4 . 1994, p. 27 .
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation       ( 2 ) See page 16 of this Official Journal .
                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , on the basis of the
                       judgments of the Court of Justice in Case
                        C-l 9/67 (Van der Vecht ) and Case C-35/70
                        ( Manpower )?
              ( ii ) If so, what is its extent ?
                                                                               Action brought on 29 May 1997 by the Portuguese
                                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European
2 . ( a ) Is a certificate issued by the competent institution                                                Communities
              of a Member State in accordance with Article 11
                                                                                ( Case C-204/97 )
              ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 binding on
              the authorities of another Member State in all                                                 ( 97/C 212/44 )
              circumstances as regards the legal consequences it
              determines ?
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
       ( b ) If not:                                                            the European Communities on 29 May 1997 by the
               (i)       In what circumstances is it not ?
                                                                                Portuguese Republic, represented by Luis Fernandes, Dr
                                                                                Angelo Sei^a Neves and Dr. Carlos Botelho Moniz, acting
               ( ii ) Can the evidential value of the certificate be           as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                         rebutted by the authorities of a Member State          the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                         without involving the institution which issued
                         the certificate ?                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               ( iii ) If not, in what must that involvement consist ?          — annul the Decision of the Commission of 6 November
                                                                                1996 on State aid No 703/95 — France, published in
 (') Decision of the Administrative Commission on Social Security                      the Official Journal of the European Communities
     of Migrant Workers .                                                              No C 70 of 6 March 1997, p. 14;
                                                                                — order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/24          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      — Breach of the general criteria for the application of
                                                                             the derogations under Article 92 ( 3 ): by approving
— Infringement of essential procedural requirements                          measures of indeterminate duration whose detailed
    — Infringement of Articles 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC                  rules and conditions for implementation are not
        Treaty: by undertaking long and complex                              set out in a transparent manner, the Commission
        negotiations with the French authorities — lasting                   breached the general criteria for the application of
        nearly 16 months from the date of notification —                     the derogations under Article 92 ( 3 ), in particular
        in the context of the preliminary stage provided                     the criterion that the aid should be transparent and
        for in Article 93 ( 3 ), the Commission undermined                   the criterion that aid for restructuring should be
        the system of procedural rules established by that                   temporary and progressively reduced.
        provision . The Commission brought forward into
        that preliminary stage — which does not provide
        the procedural guarantees for either the other
        Member States or third parties concerned which
        flow from the opening of the Article 93 ( 2 )
        procedure — the detailed examination of the
        notified measures which should be carried out in             Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of
        the framework of the aforementioned procedure .                  Sweden against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C-206/97
        Moreover, the Commission infringed the
        procedural rights of the AEVP — Associafao de                                         ( 97/C 212/45 )
        Empresas de Vinho de Porto, in its capacity as a
        third party submitting a complaint, inasmuch as it
        completely sidetracked the right of that body to             An action against the Council of the European Union was
        participate in the administrative procedure. Having          brought before the Court of Justice of the European
        conducted extensive negotiations with the French             Communities on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of
        authorities in the preliminary stage, the                    Sweden, represented by Lotty Nordling, Under-Secretary
        Commission was under an obligation to inform                 for Legal Affairs, with an address for service in
        AEVP of the essential elements of the notified
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy, 2 rue H. Heine,
        measures and of the reservations made by the                 Luxembourg.
        Commission with regard to those measures, and to
        have asked AEVP to submit any observations it
        considered appropriate .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
    — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
        contested measure does not set out adequately the            1 . pursuant to Article 173 , declare TAC Regulation (EC )
         factual or legal reasons which led to the adoption               No 390/97 H invalid to the extent that the Regulation
         of the Decision .
                                                                          concerns the allocation of cod in Zone Illb, c, d,
— Infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law
    relating to its application                                           and
    — Infringement of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in
         conjunction with Article 95 thereof: the
         Commission could not have been unaware — since              2 . order the Council to pay Sweden's costs.
         the matter was expressly raised by the third party
         submitting a complaint — of the terms of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         domestic tax legislation relating to both the
         products benefiting from the approved aid and the
         competing products . While that French legislation          Article 121 ( 1 ) of the Act concerning the conditions of
         is not formally discriminatory, it cannot be denied          accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
         that its effect is, in substance, discriminatory.            Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
         Thus, natural sweet wines ( 92% of which are                to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
         produced in France ) are taxed at a rate of FF 350,          in the wording laid down in Council Decision 95/1/EC,
         whereas the remaining liqueur wines ( 81% of                 Euratom, ECSC (2 ) is to be set aside :
         which are imported from other Member States ) are
         taxed at the rate of FF 1 400 per hectolitre of the
         final product ( that is to say, four times as much ).        As regards 1997, a catch of 112 452 tonnes of cod was
         By approving a system of aid of indeterminate                available to the Community for fish in Community waters
          duration, intended to respond to the interests of           in Zone Illb, c, d. In accordance with Article 121 ( 1 ) of
          the French liqueur wine producers excluded from             the Act of Accession, Sweden was to be allocated 39 999
         the more advantageous tax category, the                      tonnes ( 0,35037 x 50 000 tonnes + 0,4 x 62 452 tonnes -
          Commission simply established a system whereby              2 500 tonnes ) of that catch. Account was taken in this
          all French-produced liqueur wines benefit from the          regard of the fact that 2 500 tonnes of Sweden's quota
          greatest competitive advantages over similar                during 1997 was to be transferred to other Member States
          products originating in or coming from other                in accordance with the agreement concluded in connection
          Member States .                                             with the signing of the EEA Agreement. Instead, Sweden


title: Case C-308/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — The Queen on the application of International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's Register, International Salvage Union v Secretary of State for Transport (Maritime transport — Ship-source pollution — Directive 2005/35/EC — Validity — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Marpol 73/78 Convention — Legal effects of the Conventions — Ability to rely on them — Serious negligence — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — The Queen on the application of International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's Register, International Salvage Union v Secretary of State for Transport
   (Case C-308/06) (1)

   (Maritime transport - Ship-source pollution - Directive 2005/35/EC - Validity - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Marpol 73/78 Convention - Legal effects of the Conventions - Ability to rely on them - Serious negligence - Principle of legal certainty)
   (2008/C 183/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen on the application of International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's Register, International Salvage Union

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of Articles 4 and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 11) — Community provisions having the effect of limiting a number of exceptions contained in an international convention (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention)) — Provisions imposing criminal penalties in situations in which an international convention (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)) does not impose any such penalties
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The validity of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements cannot be assessed:

                           —

                           either in the light of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by the Protocol of 17 February 1978,

                           —

                           or in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed in Montego Bay on 10 December 1982.

               2.

               Examination of the fourth question has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 4 of Directive 2005/35 in the light of the general principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case F-103/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — CG v EIB (Civil Service — Staff of the EIB — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Decision of the President not to act on a complaint — Opinion of the committee of inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Intentional nature of the conduct — Finding of conduct and symptoms constituting psychological harassment — Search for the causal link — Absence — Inconsistency of the opinion of the committee of inquiry — Manifest error of assessment — Maladministration — Obligation of confidentiality — Protection of personal data — Action for compensation)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — CG v EIB
   (Case F-103/11) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Staff of the EIB - Psychological harassment - Inquiry procedure - Decision of the President not to act on a complaint - Opinion of the committee of inquiry - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Intentional nature of the conduct - Finding of conduct and symptoms constituting psychological harassment - Search for the causal link - Absence - Inconsistency of the opinion of the committee of inquiry - Manifest error of assessment - Maladministration - Obligation of confidentiality - Protection of personal data - Action for compensation))
   2014/C 421/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CG (represented initially by: N. Thieltgen, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: EIB (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented initially by: I. Chatelier and H. Kranenborg, and subsequently by: I. Chatelier and A. Buchta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to take any action following the inquiry concerning alleged psychological harassment and to annul the final conclusion of the committee of inquiry and claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank of 27 July 2011;

               2.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to pay CG the sum of EUR 35  000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CG;

               5.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor, intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 25.


title: Case C-414/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court), by order of that court of 24 June 1999, in the case of Zino Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd

text:
C 6/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                     The questions exclusive to the Baumbast
Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of                        case
28 May 1999, in the case of Baumbast and ‘R’ against
          Secretary of State for the Home Department
                                                                          Question 3
                          (Case C-413/99)                                 (a) On the facts of Mr. Baumbast’s case, does he, as an EU
                                                                               citizen, enjoy a directly effective right of residence in
                                                                               another EU Member State pursuant to article 18 (ex article
                           (2000/C 6/33)                                       8a) of the Treaty of Rome in circumstances where he no
                                                                               longer enjoys rights of residence as a worker under article
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         39 (ex article 48) of the Treaty of Rome, and does not
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                     qualify for residence in the host state under any other
Tribunal, London, of 28 May 1999, which was received at the                    provision of EU law?
Court Registry on 28 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Baumbast and ‘R’ against Secretary of State for            (b) If so, are his wife and children consequently able to enjoy
the Home Department, on the following questions:                               derivative residence, employment and other rights?
                                                                          (c) If so, do they do so on the basis of articles 11 and 12 of
                                                                               Regulation 1612/68 or some other (and if so, which)
Question 1                                                                     provision of EU law?
(a) Are children of a citizen of the European Union who are               Question 4
     themselves such citizens and who have installed themselves
     in primary education during the exercise by their father (or         (a) Assuming that the preceding question is answered in the
     parent) of rights of residence as a worker in another                     EU citizen’s disfavour, do that person’s family members
     member state of which he is not a national (’the host state’)             retain the derivative rights that they, as such members,
     entitled to reside in the host state in order to undergo                  originally acquired upon being installed in the UK with a
     general educational courses there, pursuant to article 12 of              worker?
     Council Regulation 1612/68? (1)
                                                                          (b) If so, what are the conditions that apply?
(b) Insofar as the answer to the preceding question may vary
     in circumstances where:                                              (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
                                                                              on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
     (i) their parents are divorced;                                          L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER1 68/II) p. 475).
     (ii) only one parent is a citizen of the European Union and
           that parent has ceased to be a worker within the host
           state;
     (iii) the children are not themselves citizens of the Euro-
           pean Union;                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent
                                                                          Court), by order of that court of 24 June 1999, in the case
     what criteria are to be applied by the national authorities?                of Zino Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-414/99)
Question 2
                                                                                (2000/C 6/34)
Where children have the right to reside in a host state in order
to undergo general education courses pursuant to article 12 of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council Regulation 1612/68, is the obligation of the host state           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
to ‘encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these         Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),
courses under the best possible conditions’ to be interpreted             of 24 June 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
as entitling their primary carer, whether or not a citizen of the         29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Zino
Union, to reside with them in order to facilitate such a right            Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd, on the following
notwithstanding:                                                          questions:
                                                                          (A) Insofar as the Directive (1) refers to goods being put on the
(i) their parents are divorced; or                                             market in the Community with the consent of the pro-
                                                                               prietor of a mark, is it to be interpreted as including
(ii) the father who is a citizen of the European Union ceases                  consent given expressly or implicitly and directly or
     to be a worker within the host state?                                     indirectly.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 6/19
(B) Where:                                                                   (ii) offending against      the   provisions  of   Directive
                                                                                76/768/EEC (2).
    (i) a proprietor has consented to or allowed goods to be
                                                                        (1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
         placed in the hands of a third party in circumstances
                                                                            approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
         where the latter’s rights to further market the goods              marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).
         are determined by the law of the contract of purchase          (2) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-
         under which that party acquired the goods, and                     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic
                                                                            products (OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169).
    (ii) said law allows the vendor to impose restrictions on
         the further marketing or use of the goods by the
         purchaser but also provides that, absent the imposition
         by or on behalf of the proprietor of effective restrictions
         on the purchaser’s right to further market the goods,
         the third party acquires a right to market the goods in
         any country, including the Community,
                                                                        Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
    then, if restrictions effective according to that law to limit
    the third party’s rights to market the goods have not been
    imposed, is the Directive to be interpreted so as to treat                                   (Case C-424/99)
    the proprietor as having consented to the right of the
    third party acquired thereby to market the goods in the                                        (2000/C 6/35)
    Community.
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
(C) If the answer to question (B) is in the affirmative, is it for      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    the national courts to determine whether, in all the                on 29 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
    circumstances, effective restrictions were imposed on the           Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
    third party.                                                        Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
                                                                        its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
(D) Is Article 7(2) of the Directive to be interpreted. in such a
    way, that legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose           The applicant claims that the Court should:
    further commercialisation of his goods include any actions
    by a third party which affect to a substantial extent the           1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    value, allure or image of the trade mark or the goods to                 administrative provisions necessary to comply in full with
    which it is applied.                                                     Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
                                                                             pricing of medicinal products for human use and their
(E) Is Article 7(2) of the Directive to be interpreted in such a             inclusion in the scope of national health insurance sys-
    way that legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose                 tems (1), and by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
    further commercialisation of his goods include the removal               the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
    or obliteration by third parties (in whole or in part) of any            under that directive;
    markings on the goods where such removal or obliteration
    is not likely to cause any serious or substantial damage to         2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
    the reputation of the trade mark or the goods bearing the                proceedings.
    mark.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(F) Is Article 7(2) of the Directive to be interpreted in such a
    way that legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose            Contrary to the view taken by Austria, the Commission
    further commercialisation of his goods include the removal          submits that the bodies responsible for operating the Austrian
    or obliteration by third parties (in whole or in part) of           health service (Hauptverband der Sozialversicherungsträger)
    batch code numbers on the goods where such removal or               (Principal Association of Social Insurance Institutions) must be
    obliteration results in the goods in question                       treated as being State authorities for the purposes of the
                                                                        directive and that the inventory of medicines published by the
                                                                        abovementioned Hauptverband pursuant to Paragraph 31(3),
    (i) offending against any part of the criminal code of a            no 12, in conjunction with Paragraph 133(2), of the Allge-
         Member State (other than a part concerned with trade           meines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social
         marks) or                                                      Security Insurance) (‘ASVG’) is a positive list within the


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium (Sixth Chamber) by judgment of that court of 14 June 1995 in the case of Myrianne Coen v. Belgian State (Case C-246/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 248/5
( 2 ) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                        that surcharge levied since the Member State's accession
                                                                            to the EC Treaty or does it apply only to the increase in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         the surcharge which came into effect after that date ?
Under Article 5 of Directive 89/665/EEC the Member States               5 . Does Community law impose special requirements with
were to have adopted the laws, regulations and                              regard to national rules on the burden of proving that
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                      the conditions for application of Article 86 of the EC
Directive before 2 1 December 1991 and to communicate the                   Treaty have been satisfied ?
relevant texts to the Commission .
                                                                        6 . If it is assumed that a public undertaking that owns and
The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has only                    operates a commercial port occupies a dominant
partially applied the above Directive with regard to public                 position, can it constitute an abuse of that position,
works contracts but that it has taken no steps at all as                    contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty, that the commercial
regards public supply contracts . In reply to the reasoned                  port levied the duties described above and laid down by
opinion, the Greek authorities informed the Commission                      the Minister for Transport for the use of public and
that they had drawn up a draft Presidential Order to                        private commercial ports ?
incorporate the Directive fully into the Greek legal order.
Since, however, that Presidential Order has not yet been                7. If question 6 is answered in the affirmative : do the
issued, the Commission decided to lodge the present                         persons or undertakings on whom the duty was imposed
application .                                                               have any right under Community law to seek
                                                                            reimbursement or compensation ?
(!) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
                                                                        8 . If it is assumed that a public undertaking that owns and
                                                                            operates a commercial port occupies a dominant
                                                                            position , can an abuse of that position, contrary to
                                                                            Article 86 of the Treaty, lie in the fact that the
                                                                            commercial port does not impose the port duties
                                                                            described in this order for reference on its own ferry
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsretby                  route or on that of its cooperation partner ?
decision of that court of 30 June 1995 in the Case of
            GT-Link A/S v. Danske Statsbaner DSB
                                                                        9 . If the answers to questions 1 , 2, 4 , 6 and/or 8 are in the
                         ( Case C-242/95 )                                  affirmative : can the particular duties and tasks assigned
                           ( 95/C 248/08 )                                  to the defendant result in a finding that the situation is
                                                                            none the less permissible under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                            Treaty ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the 0stre Landsret
( Eastern Regional Court) by decision of 30 June 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 1995 ,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of GT-Link A/S v. Danske
Statsbaner DSB on the following questions :
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etatoi
1 . is a special surcharge of 40 % of a goods duty which, as            the Kingdom of Belgium ( Sixth Chamber ) by judgment of
      described in this order for reference , is ordinarily levied      that court of 14 June 1995 in the case of Myrianne Coen
      for the use of ports authorized by the Danish Minister                                    v. Belgian State
      for Transport to operate as commercial ports to be                                       ( Case C-246/95 )
      regarded as coming under the EC Treaty rules on the
      Customs Union, including Articles 9 to 13 , or under                                       ( 95/C 248/09 )
      Article 95 of that Treaty ?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2 . Are the EC Treaty rules on the Customs Union,                       European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
      including Articles 9 to 13 , or Article 95 to be understood       ( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium ( Sixth
      as meaning that it is incompatible with those provisions          Chamber ) of 14 june 1995 , which was received at the Court
      to impose a special surcharge of 40 % of the goods duty           Registry on 17 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
      ordinarily levied if that surcharge is imposed exclusively        of Myrianne Coen v. Belgian State on the following
      on goods imported from outside Denmark ?                          questions :
3 . If question 2 is answered in the affirmative : under what           ' On a proper cobstruction of the fifth paragraph of
      circumstances can such a duty be justified on the ground          Article 1 73 of the Treaty of Rome, with respect to the period
      that it represents consideration for a service provided or        of two months prescribed therein for contesting a Decision
      on grounds of transport policy pursuant to the Title in           of the Commission, may a decision of a court of a Member
      the EC Treaty dealing with transport ?                            State, finding an act of the State concerned unlawful , cause
                                                                        time to start running again where the act in question may
4 . If the special surcharge is held to be incompatible with            have influenced the Decision of the Commission which it is
      the EC Treaty, does that finding apply to the whole of            sought to contest ?'
 ---pagebreak--- No C 248/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23 . 9 . 95
If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European             du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
Communities for a preliminary ruling:                                    by judgment of that court of 12 July 1995 in the case of
                                                                         Futura Participations SA and Singer against Administration
'In the case of a request that candidates be proposed for                                        des Contributions
posts in the administration of the Commission of the                                               ( Case C-250/95 )
European Communities, made during a meeting between
the Permanent Representatives and the Secretary:General of                                            ( 95/C 248/ 11 )
the Commission and directly addressed to the Member
States with no other form of publicity, or outhwith a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
recruitment procedure published in the Official Journal of               European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
the European Communities, is such a request valid,                       du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
particularly having regard to the rules governing the                    ( Council of State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg,
recruitment of members of the temporary staff and officials              Judicial Division ) of 12 July 1995 , which was received at the
of the Commission ?'                                                     Court Registry on 19 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Futura Participations SA and Singer against
                                                                         Administration des Contributions on the following
                                                                         question :
                                                                         Are Article 157 of the Law on income tax and, in so far as is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal                  necessary, Article 4 and the second subparagraph of
tungsgerichtNordrhein- Westfalen by orders of that court of              Article 24 ( 2 ) of the France-Luxembourg Convention on
29 May 1995 in the cases of Firirta SAM Schiffahrt GmbH v.               double taxation compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty
Federal Republic of Germany and Heinz Stapf v. Federal                   inasmuch as they make the application to non-resident
                        Republic of Germany                              taxpayers having a permanent business'in Luxembourg of
                ( Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 )                          provisions on the carrying forward of losses subject to the
                                                                         condition that the losses should be related to income
                              ( 95/C 248/10
                                                                         received locally and that accounts should be duly made up
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          and kept within the country ?
of the European Communities by orders of the
 Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher
Administrative Court, North Rhine Westphalia ) of 29 May
 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry on 19 July
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Firma SAM               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes
Schiffahrt GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany and                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1995 in the
                                                                                case of Sabel BY v. Puma AG
Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany on the
following questions :                                                                               ( Case C-251/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/12 )
 1 . was     the adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No    1101 /89 (*), Commission Regulation ( EEC )                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       No   1102/89 ( 2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC )               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Senate
       No   3685/89 ( 3 ) appropriate within the meaning of               of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of
       Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?                          29 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          20 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sabel BV
 2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can those         v. Puma AG on the following questions :
       regulations become invalid if, subsequently to their
       adoption, they cease to be appropriate within the                  With reference to the interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
       meaning of Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?               of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                          approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
 3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, were the          marks ( 89/104/EEC ) ('):
       Regulations still appropriate at the relevant time for the
       levying of the 1990 contributions to the Scrapping                 is it sufficient for a finding that there is a risk of confusion
       Fund ?                                                             between a sign composed of text and picture and a sign
                                                                          consisting merely of a picture, which is registered for
 4. Does the obligation laid down in the Regulations to                   identical and similar goods and is not especially well known
       pay contributions for 1990 infringe fundamental                    in commerce, that the two signs coincide as to their
       Community rights or other Community law, in                        signification ( in this case, a leaping feline beast of prey )?
       particular the right to property, the right to pursue a
       trade or profession, the principle of equality and the             What is the significance in this connection of the wording of
       principle of proportionality ?                                     the Directive, according to which the risk of confusion
                                                                          includes the likelihood that a mark may be associated with
 0 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .                                an earlier mark ?
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 360 , 9 . 12 . 1989 , p . 20 .                              (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 1 .


title: Case F-33/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Lebedef v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal for the year 2005 — Career development report — General provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Report drawn up following the judgment in Case F-36/07 — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-33/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal for the year 2005 - Career development report - General provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Report drawn up following the judgment in Case F-36/07 - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 232/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January 2005 till 31 December 2005, as drawn up following its annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal in its judgment in Case F-36/07.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Mr Lebedef to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 53.


title: Case C-352/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 31 July 2008 — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 31 July 2008 — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-352/08)
   (2008/C 285/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Must Article 11(1)(a) of [Council] Directive 90/434/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 be interpreted as meaning that the benefits of that Directive may be withheld from a tax-payer where a series of legal transactions is aimed at preventing the levying of a tax other than the taxes to which the benefits set out in that Directive relate?

      (1)  [Council] Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case T-446/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Dow AgroSciences and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance trifluralin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Dow AgroSciences and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos v Commission
   (Case T-446/10) (1)

   ((Plant protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 346/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom); and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Ondrůšek and F. Wilman, and subsequently by P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/355/EU of 25 June 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2010 L 160, p. 30).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos, Lda to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-247/07: Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Slovakia v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/47

         Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Slovakia v Commission
   (Case T-247/07)
   (2007/C 211/88)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the contested decision void inasmuch as it relates to the applicant, alternatively, if the Court of First Instance considers it necessary or desirable, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1979 final of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (1) in the amended version of 25 May 2007. The contested Commission decision fixed the quantities of certain types of fruit and rice in free circulation in the Slovak Republic at the date of accession exceeding the quantities which could be regarded as constituting a normal carryover of stock at 1 May 2004. At the same time, it charged the applicant EUR 3 634 000 in consequence of the expense of eliminating those quantities.
   The applicant submits that the defendant lacked the power to adopt the contested decision.
   In addition, the applicant states that even if the defendant were to have the power to determine excess stocks in the Slovak Republic and to impose a financial penalty on the applicant in respect of those allegedly excess stocks, it infringed the Treaty of Accession (2) in that it did not act on the correct legal basis, namely Article 41 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession (3).
   Moreover, the applicant submits that, in not establishing that the Community incurred expenses or suffered other damage as a result of the applicant's failure to eliminate the excess quantities and in failing to adopt in time an appropriate legal measure authorising (i) the elimination of excess stock from the applicant's market, (ii) the means of determining what is excess stock and (iii) the means of calculating the applicant's financial burden, the defendant, by the contested decision, infringed the Treaty of Accession and the general legal principles of proportionality and legal certainty.
   Finally, the applicant submits that a serious infringement of the procedural requirement to state reasons occurred.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14.

      (2)  Treaty concerning the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic, of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 17).

      (3)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).


title: Case T-152/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2009 — NDSHT v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Complaint by a competitor — Letters from the Commission to a complainant — Existing aid — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/9

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2009 — NDSHT v Commission
   (Case T-152/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Complaint by a competitor - Letters from the Commission to a complainant - Existing aid - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 167/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letters to NDSHT of 24 March and 28 April 2006, relating to a complaint concerning allegedly unlawful State aid granted by the City of Stockholm to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (Case CP 178/04 — Alleged State aid to SVB AB),

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.