title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-213/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto, Portugal): José Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Público (Release of goods for free circulation — Expiry of the period within which a customs-approved use must be assigned — Procedure for putting goods up for sale or levying an ad valorem duty)

text:
C 118/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            21.4.2001
measures necessary to comply with its obligations under                    equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5 of Council Directive                    employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection                   conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the United Kingdorn has failed              ris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty           Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,                1.     National provisions governing the date of admission to the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in                            practical legal training which is a necessary prerequisite of
which it:                                                                         access to employment in the civil service fall within the scope of
                                                                                Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                  women as regards access to employment, vocational training
      obligations laid down in Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5                 and promotion, and working conditions.
      of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
      concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by      2.     National provisions such as those at issue in the main
      nitrates from agricultural sources, the United Kingdom of Great             proceedings do not constitute discrimination directly based on
      Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           sex.
      under that directive;
                                                                           3.     National provisions such as those at issue in the main
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                     proceedings constitute indirect discrimination based on sex.
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           4.     Directive 76/207 does not preclude national provisions such as
                                                                                those at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as such
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                        provisions are justified by objective reasons and prompted solely
                                                                                by a desire to counterbalance to some extent the delay resulting
                                                                                from the completion of compulsory military or civilian service.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 7 December 2000
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-79/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Julia Schnor-                                            of 7 December 2000
                       bus v Land Hessen (1)
                                                                           in Case C-213/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Equal treatment for men and women — Rules on access to                    the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto, Portugal): José
practical legal training in Land Hesse — Priority for                      Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões,
 applicants who have completed military or civilian service)                                intervener: Ministério Público (1)
                           (2001/C 118/03)                                 (Release of goods for free circulation — Expiry of the period
                                                                           within which a customs-approved use must be assigned —
                                                                           Procedure for putting goods up for sale or levying an ad
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                        valorem duty)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-79/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsge-
richt Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Main), Germany for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                      in the European Court Reports)
pending before that court between Julia Schnorbus and Land
Hessen - on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC             In Case C-213/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Fiscal
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 118/3
Aduaneiro do Porto, (Customs Court, Oporto) Portugal, for a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between José Teodoro de Andrade and Director da
Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Publico — on the                                        (Sixth Chamber)
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 6, 53 and                                        of 7 December 2000
243 thereof, and of the Community rules relating to value
added tax, — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puisso-             in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
chet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fen-              the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi
nelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                                    Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (1)
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Ser-
                                                                            vice-station agreements — Duration — Significant contri-
                                                                            bution made by one supplier’s contracts to the closing-off of
1.    Article 53 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                  the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same
      12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                              supplier)
      does not preclude the automatic application, without prior
      notification, of a procedure such as that established by
      Portuguese legislation, which provides for goods to be put up                                    (2001/C 118/05)
      for sale where the statutory time-limits for making a declaration
      for release for free circulation or an application for another
      customs-approved treatment or use for the goods have expired.                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2.    Use of a procedure providing either for such goods to be put up                           in the European Court Reports)
      for sale or for an ad valorem surcharge to be levied in order to
      regularise the situation of the goods is not in itself contrary to
      the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to     In Case C-214/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      determine whether the surcharge applied in the present case           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen
      complies with that principle.                                         Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, for a prelimi-
                                                                            nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                            between Neste Markkinointi Oy and Yötuuli Ky and Others —
                                                                            on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
3.    Article 6(3) and Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 do              Article 81(1) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
      not preclude use of a procedure, such as that at issue in the         C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
      main proceedings, which does not provide for interested parties       ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
      to receive prior notification.                                        N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
                                                                            2000, in which it has ruled:
4.    A surcharge intended to penalise a failure to comply with             The prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
      customs formalities cannot be subject to value added tax.             Article 81(1) EC) does not apply to an exclusive purchasing
                                                                            agreement entered into by a motor-fuels supplier which the retailer
                                                                            may terminate upon one year’s notice at any time where all
                                                                            that supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, whether considered
                                                                            separately or as a whole, taken together with the network of similar
                                                                            agreements made by the totality of suppliers, have an appreciable
                                                                            effect on the closing-off of the market but where the agreements of
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                   the same kind as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings by
                                                                            reason of their duration represent only a very small part of the totality
                                                                            of one supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, of which the
                                                                            majority are fixed term contracts entered into for more than one year.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case C-530/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-530/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings)
   2014/C 93/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and L. Armati, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and J. Maurici, Barrister)

      Supported by: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C.H. Vang, Agent), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, Agents, and E. Barrington and G. Gilmore, Barristers)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Obligation to remove or reduce financial barriers to access to justice in environmental matters — Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, inasmuch as they provide that the judicial proceedings referred to must not be prohibitively expensive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs and the Kingdom of Denmark and Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case T-208/01: Action brought on 10 September 2001 by Volkswagen AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331/23
Action brought on 10 September 2001 by Volkswagen                        Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the applicant
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-                       submits that Volkswagen’s written and oral requests were
                                ties                                     unilateral measures and not agreements within the meaning of
                                                                         Article 81(1) EC. They were not incorporated in the dealership
                                                                         agreement and the Contracting Parties did not subsequently
                         (Case T-208/01)                                 make them part of the agreement.
                         (2001/C 331/38)
                                                                         Further, the applicant maintains that there is no appreciable
                                                                         effect on trade between the Member States. It has not been
                   (Language of the case: German)                        proved that increasing or decreasing the discount by a few
                                                                         percentage points would have led to a noticeable increase in
                                                                         parallel trade.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Finally, the applicant submits that the fine imposed on it is
European Communities on 10 September 2001 by Volkswag-                   unfounded. Even supposing that there were infringement of
en AG, Wolfsburg (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold,                  Article 81(1), the fine is excessively high.
lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the Commission’s decision of 29 June 2001 (Case
      COMP/F-2/36.693 — Volkswagen);
                                                                         Action brought on 12 September 2001 by Honeywell
                                                                         International Inc. against the Commission of the European
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 2 of                                   Communities
      the Decision;
                                                                                (Case T-209/01)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                             (Language of the case: English)
At the time of the launch of the new ‘VW Passat’ onto
the German market, the Volkswagen marketing director for                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Germany sent a circular urging German Volkswagen dealers                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
and garages not to sell the new models for less than the                 European Communities on 12 September 2001 by Honeywell
recommended retail price and to observe ‘strict price disci-             International Inc., represented by Paul Lasok QC and Frederic
pline’.                                                                  Depoortere of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
                                                                         Brussels (Belgium).
On the basis of a complaint made by a car buyer, the
Commission initiated a formal procedure, which led to the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
adoption of the contested Decision. In the Decision, the
Commission found that the applicant, by fixing the selling               —     join the present case with the action brought by General
price of the VW Passat on the basis of the abovementioned                      Electric Co. for annulment of the Commission’s decision
request, had infringed Article 81(1) EC. A fine of EUR                         of 3 July 2001,
30,96 million was imposed on the applicant.
                                                                         —     order such measures of inquiry (including the hearing as
                                                                               witnesses or, as the case may be, as experts of the persons
In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the conduct                identified in this application) as may appear necessary,
complained of and not disputed by it did not infringe
Article 81(1) EC. It admits that its employees contravened
German competition law in a way attributable to it. However,             —     annul the Commission’s decision of 3 July 2001,
the applicant submits that Article 81(1) does not contain a
prohibition on making recommendations. That provision                    —     take such other or further steps as justice may require,
prohibits only anticompetitive agreements, decisions and
concerted practices but not requests and mere recommen-                  —     order the Commission to pay its own and Honeywell’s
dations.                                                                       costs.


C 146/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    21.6.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-192/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/60)                                                       (2003/C 146/63)
By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-192/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                            Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-149/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-343/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/61)                                                       (2003/C 146/64)
By order of 6 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-149/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-343/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.                             Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-155/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-363/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/62)                                                       (2003/C 146/65)
By order of 10 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 3 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-155/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-363/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                    Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-367/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV (Preliminary ruling — Act detrimental to the financial interests of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 1, Article 3(1), third subparagraph, and Articles 5 and 7 — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Articles 11 and 18(2)(c) — Meaning of economic operator — Persons who have taken part in the irregularity — Persons under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed — Administrative penalty — Direct effect — Limitation period for proceedings — Interruption)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV
   (Case C-367/09) (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Act detrimental to the financial interests of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 1, Article 3(1), third subparagraph, and Articles 5 and 7 - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Articles 11 and 18(2)(c) - Meaning of ‘economic operator’ - Persons who have taken part in the irregularity - Persons under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed - Administrative penalty - Direct effect - Limitation period for proceedings - Interruption)
   2010/C 346/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

      Defendants: SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 1, Article 3(1), third subparagraph, and Articles 5 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 1998 L 36, p. 16) and of Article 18(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘economic operator’ — Persons who have taken part in the irregularity and persons who are under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed — Limitation period for legal proceedings — Interruption

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 5 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests do not apply in such a way that an administrative penalty may be imposed on the basis of those provisions alone since, if, in connection with the protection of the European Union’s financial interests, an administrative penalty is to be applied to a category of persons, a necessary precondition is that, prior to commission of the irregularity in question, either the European Union legislature has adopted sectoral rules laying down such a penalty and the conditions for its application to that category of persons or, where such rules have not yet been adopted at European Union level, the law of the Member State where the irregularity was committed has provided for the imposition of an administrative penalty on that category of persons.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those in issue in the main proceedings, in which European Union sectoral rules did not yet require Member States to provide for effective penalties in cases in which an international control and supervisory agency approved by a Member State has issued false certificates, Article 7 of Regulation No 2988/95 does not prevent Member States from applying a penalty to that agency in its capacity as a person who has ‘taken part in the irregularity’ or as a person who is ‘under a duty to take responsibility’ for the irregularity within the meaning of Article 7, provided, however, that the application of such a penalty rests on a clear and unambiguous legal basis, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those in issue in the main proceedings, the communication, to an international control and supervisory agency which has issued a certificate for release for consumption in respect of a specific export operation, of an investigative report drawing attention to an irregularity in connection with that operation, the presentation to that agency of a request to produce additional documents for the purpose of checking whether the release for consumption actually took place and the sending of a registered letter imposing a penalty on that agency for having taken part in an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 constitute acts, notified to the person in question and relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity, which are sufficiently specific to interrupt the limitation period for proceedings within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-266/02: Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche Post AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 274/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.11.2002
The applicant contends in addition that the infringement in              Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche Post
the present case did not appreciably affect trade between                AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
Member States. Many of the Bankenrunden had no international                                            ties
connection. Others could at any rate have no appreciable effect
on trade between States. Even if the infringement were to have
affected trade between States appreciably, there is in any                                        (Case T-266/02)
event no fault on the applicant’s part. In accordance with
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 it was therefore not
possible to fine the applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 274/57)
Furthermore, in determining the applicant’s fine the defendant
made two errors of calculation with serious consequences.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Also, the seriousness of the infringement and the existence of
mitigating grounds are misappraised in the decision and no
regard was had to the applicant’s extensive cooperation.
Finally, the decision violates the prohibition on retroactivity in
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
because the fine was determined on the basis of a framework              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for fines which, as a result of two amendments to the                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
defendant’s decision-making practice, was not introduced until           European Communities on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche
the infringement had come to an end.                                     Post AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and
                                                                         T. Lübbig, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt
              against the European Central Bank                          —     declare the Commission Decision of 19 June 2002 on
                                                                               State aid No 61/99 (ex No 153/96) void;
                         (Case T-265/02)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                        (2002/C 274/56)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt, Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.                            The subject of the contested decision is the below-cost selling
                                                                         of parcel services for business clients, compensating for which
                                                                         gives rise to cross-subsidisation which is contrary to the law
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              on aid. In its decision the Commission found that the State aid
                                                                         of EUR 572 million, which Germany granted to the applicant,
—     annul the formal warning given by the letter of 28 Febru-          was incompatible with the common market. It found that
      ary 2002;                                                          State compensation for the net additional costs of a rebate
                                                                         policy which reduces the costs normally incurred in providing
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              door to door parcel services which are open to competition
                                                                         favoured the undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1)
                                                                         EC.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The case has the same basis as Case T-83/02 (Pflugradt v                 The applicant contests that decision and points out that the
ECB) ( 1), and the pleas in law and arguments correspond to              same below-cost selling was the subject of the Commission
those which were put forward in that case.                               Decision of 20 March 2000 ( 1) adopted on the basis of
                                                                         Article 82 EC and that the two decisions came to very different
                                                                         conclusions regarding the duration, the amount and the source
( 1) OJ C 118, 18.5.2002, p. 30.                                         of financing of the alleged below-cost selling. The applicant
                                                                         submits that the below-cost selling alleged in the Decision is
                                                                         based on a miscalculation.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/33
The applicant also argues that the Commission’s assertion that            The applicant claims that the Court should:
the below-cost selling complained of arose as a result of an
aggressive rebate policy and that there is thus no causal link            —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
between it and the applicant’s public service obligations is not                26 June 2002 in the appeal procedure R 206/2002-3;
based on any evidence and is clearly inaccurate. Further, the
Commission has exceeded its powers in the area of services in             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
the general economic interest, as, according to the case-law, it
has no authority to decide on the level of costs or the efficiency
of the postal service provider.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the Commission has misapplied                  Community trade mark           Word mark ‘bestpartner’ — appli-
Article 87 and infringed the case-law on findings regarding aid           applied for:                   cation No 2 268 134
to undertakings providing services in the general economic
interest. The Commission has furnished no evidence that the               Goods or services:             Services in Classes 36, 38 and
decision on cross-subsidisation in favour of the business client                                         42 (inter alia, insurance, Internet
parcel service can be attributed to State-run bodies of the                                              services and data processing for
Federal Republic of Germany. Moreover the Commission has                                                 others)
disregarded the fact that a purely internal offsetting of losses
within an undertaking does not constitute aid, but is merely              Decision before         the    Refusal of registration by the
covered by Article 82. It has also disregarded the fact that the          Board of Appeal:               examiner
financing of temporary below-cost selling was an economically
sound decision.                                                           Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has                    Pleas in law:                  —     No grounds for refusal under
infringed the principle of the right to a fair hearing.                                                        Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1);
( 1) Commission Decision 2001/354/EC of 20 March 2001 relating                                           —     No need to keep free.
     to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/
     35.141 Deutsche Post AG) (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 27).
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 28 August 2002 by MLP Finanz-                           Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Österreichische
dienstleistungen AG against the Office for Harmonisation                  Volksbanken-Aktiengesellschaft and Niederösterreichi-
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    sche Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-270/02)                                                            (Case T-271/02)
                         (2002/C 274/58)                                                            (2002/C 274/59)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Österreichi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   sche Volksbanken-Aktiengesellschaft and Niederösterreichi-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    sche Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG, established in Vienna
28 August 2002 by MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG, Heidel-                  and St. Pölten (Austria), represented by A. Ablasser, R. Roniger
berg (Germany), represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer.                        and R. Bierwagen, Lawyers.


title: Case F-5/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/26

         Action brought on 19 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-5/15)
   (2015/C 096/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The declaration of the illegality of Article 9 of the general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the annulment of the decision relating to transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, a decision which applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is illegal;

               —

               Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, under the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-271/95)

text:
No C 286/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
    constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a              expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural
    customs duty on imports, notwithstanding the fact that             Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee
    it is also levied on goods entering that region from               Section ( OJ 1993 L 301 , p. 13 ) is void in part — the Court
    another part of the same State 's territory, and                   ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
    notwithstanding the fact that an ad valorem charge is              Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
    also levied on goods exported from the region in                   Edward and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
    question;                                                          Colomer, Advocate-General ; M. von Holstein , Deputy
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in
                                                                       which it :
2 . an ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods
    exported to another Member State by reason of their
    leaving a region of the first Member State 's territory            1 . dismisses the application;
    constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a
    customs duty on exports, notwithstanding the fact that
    it is also levied on goods leaving that region for another         2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    part of the territory of the same State;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
3 . a national rule under which there is levied a charge
    having an effect equivalent to a customs duty is not
    compatible with Article 9 et seq . of the EEC Treaty;
4 . ad valorem charges levied by a Member State on goods
    entering a region of its territory solely from other
    regions of the same State and on goods despatched from             Action brought on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom of
    one region solely to other regions of the same State               Belgium against the Commission of the European
    constitute charges having an effect equivalent to                                             Communities
    customs duties on imports and exports respectively;                                         Case C-271 /95
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/04 )
5 . the provisions of the EEC Treaty relating to charges
    having an effect equivalent to customs duties cannot be
    relied on in support of claims for refunds of sums levied          An action against the Commission of the European
    by way of the contested duty before 1 6 July 1 992, except         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal            European Communities on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom
    proceedings or raised an equivalent claim .                        of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
                                                                       Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
                                                                       Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
(') O J No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 ( ),
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                     of 14 September 1995
in Case C-49/94 : Ireland v. Commission of the European                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          Communities (')
           (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1990)                        — Inapplicability of the legal basis relied on: Article 149(1 )
                                                                            of the 1994 Act of Accession relates only to ancillary
                            ( 95/C 286/03 )
                                                                            rules in the case where a common organization of the
                                                                            market applies by virtue of the Treaty of Accession . This
                 (Language of the case: English)                            means in particular that measures adopted pursuant to
                                                                            Article 149 ( 1 ) cannot restrict the operation of
                                                                            Article 137(2 ) of the Act of Accession, which introduces
In Case C-49/94 : Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) v.                  the title dealing with agriculture . The contested
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Xavier                      regulation, however, deals essentially not with
Lewis , assisted by John Flandoll, Solicitor) — application                 transitional measures but rather with derogations
for a declaration that Commission Decision 93/659/EC of                     allowing the new Member States to avoid application of
25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts                           the common organization of the market, contrary to
presented by the Member States in respect of the                            Article 137 ( 2 ) of the Act of Accession.
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 286/3
— Discrimination, inadequate statement of reasons ( see                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
      Cases C-71 /95 (2 ) and C-155/95 ( 3 )).                             Case T-7/93 (') between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, supported
(') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 of 30 May 1995                 by Mars GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice
      adopting transitional measures for the application of the tariff     of the European Communities on 18 August 1995 by
      quota arrangements for imports of bananas for the third quarter      Langnese-Iglo GmbH, Hamburg ( Federal Republic of
      of 1995 as a result of the accession of Austria , Finland and        Germany ), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernard M.
      Sweden ( OJ No L 120 , 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 20 ).                      Maassen, Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p . 13 .                               Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(■') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 3 .
                                                                           Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                          1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     the European Communities of 8 June 1995 in Case
Scala by order of that court of 27 July 1995 and supplement                     T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
of 4 September 1995 in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                     European Communities in so far as it dismissed the
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori                       appellant's action against Commission Decision
                 Associati Veneti soc.coop. a r.l .                             93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 , in a proceeding
                                                                                under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
                           ( Case C-2 73/95                                     IV/34.072 );
                             ( 95/C 286/05 )
                                                                           2 . declare void Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992, in a proceeding
European        Communities         by     order  of the     Pretura            under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     IV/34.072 );
Scala (Verona District Magistrate's Court — Isola della
Scala Division ) of 27 July 1995 , supplemented on                         3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the
4 September 1995 , which were received at the Court                             proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
Registry on 11 August and 12 September 1995 , for a                             costs of the appeal proceedings; or
preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                 in the alternative,
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori
Associati Veneti soc.coop . a r.l . on the following                            refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the
question :
                                                                                European Communities .
'Is Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 ( 1 ) and in particular
Articles 10 and 1 1 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the date to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
applying the agricultural conversion rate to the processing                Infringement of Community law when appraising the pleas
premium is the date on which the tobacco is delivered to the               in law: ( a ) infringement of the principle of the protection of
processor by the producer group or the date on which the                   legitimate expectations, ( b ) infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
product is supplied by the individual producer to the group                the Treaty ( effects on competition of the exclusive dealing
itself, and what constitutes " delivery under contract " within            agreements ) and ( c ) infringement of the principles of
the meaning of the abovementioned provisions ?'                            proportionality and of equal treatment .
(') O J No L 351 , 2 . 12 . 1992 , p . 17 .                                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 18 .
Appeal brought on 18 August 1995 by Langnese-Iglo                          Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the                  the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Second Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                      on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/93                  Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-3 1/9 1
between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the Commission of the                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
      European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH                                                    Communities
                         ( Case C-279/95 P )                                                      ( Case C-287/95 P
                              ( 95/C 286/06 )                                                        ( 95/C 286/07 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
 by the Second Chamber, extended composition, of the                        by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court


title: Case C-517/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Article 6(2) — Deterioration and pollution of Lake Koroneia — Protection — Inadequacy of the measures taken — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment — Articles 3 and 4(1) and (3) — Agglomeration of Langada — System for the collection and treatment of urban waste-water — ‘Absence’ )

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-517/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Article 6(2) - Deterioration and pollution of Lake Koroneia - Protection - Inadequacy of the measures taken - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Articles 3 and 4(1) and (3) - Agglomeration of Langada - System for the collection and treatment of urban waste-water - ‘Absence’)
   2013/C 108/05
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, S. Petrova, B.D. Simon and L. Banciella, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Breach of Articles 3 and 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to take the required steps to avoid the deterioration and pollution of Lake Koroneia (Prefecture of Thessalonika) — Failure to set up a system for the collection and treatment of urban waste water for the agglomeration of Langada

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By not having taken all the required steps to avoid the deterioration of the natural habitats and the habitats of species for which the special area of conservation GR 1220009 was designated and by not having set up a system for the collection and treatment of urban waste water for the agglomeration of Langada, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that Directive, as well as its obligations under Articles 3 and 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case T-450/10 P: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reasonable period of time within which to bring a damages claim — Lateness — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/21

         Order of the General Court of 18 July 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-450/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reasonable period of time within which to bring a damages claim - Lateness - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 282/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 9 July 2010 in Case F-91/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to annul that order.

      Operative part of the order:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-843/16: Action brought on 29 November 2016 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/40

         Action brought on 29 November 2016 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)
   (Case T-843/16)
   (2017/C 038/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Foto Paradies’ — European Union trade mark No 10 707 933

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 in Case R 1194/2015-1

      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 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-593/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA and Others

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA and Others
   (Case C-593/13)
   2014/C 61/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

      Respondents: Rina Services SpA and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the TFEU principles of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) and freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU) and the principles laid down in Directive 2006/123/EC (1) … preclude the adoption and application of national legislation under which SOAs constituted as limited companies ‘must have their seat in Italian territory’?

               2.

               Must the derogation provided for in Article 51 TFEU be interpreted as covering an activity such as the certification carried out by private-law bodies which, on the one hand, are required to be formed as limited companies and operate in a competitive market and, on the other hand, are connected with the exercise of official authority and, for that reason, are subject to authorisation and rigorous controls by the Supervisory Authorities?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case C-247/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2014 by HeidelbergCement AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-302/11 HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/10

         Appeal brought on 22 May 2014 by HeidelbergCement AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-302/11 HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission
   (Case C-247/14 P)
   2014/C 223/15
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: HeidelbergCement AG (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               2.

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final (COMP/39520 — Cement and related products) of 30 March 2011, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the appellant;

               3.

               in the alternative to the claim at 2 above, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law;

               4.

               in any event order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 in Case T-302/11. The judgment was served on the appellant on 14 March 2014. By its judgment, the General Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 in case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products.
   The appellant puts forward seven grounds of appeal:
   First, the General Court did not adequately examine, and erroneously applied, the requirements relating to the determination of the purpose of the request for information under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. (1) It did not sufficiently investigate the text of the decision requiring information and failed to have regard to the requirements relating to the Commission’s obligation to state reasons.
   Secondly, the General Court erred in law in proceeding on the assumption that the requirements relating to the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU could be limited by Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. Accordingly, the General Court did not examine the complaint that there had been a failure to state reasons for the choice of a decision to require information in the case. Nor did the General Court adequately examine the complaint regarding the failure to state reasons in respect of the fixing of a time-limit. The text of the reasons for its decision is identical to text that is tailored to parallel proceedings and to a substantively different complaint put forward in that case.
   Thirdly, the General Court’s examination of ‘necessity’ for the purposes of the first sentence in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 was inadequate, in that it considered a detailed explanation of the evidential position by the Commission to be superfluous. In addition, its requirements regarding the relationship between reasonable grounds for suspicion and the need for the information requested were wrong. Furthermore, it misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, as it did not deem it necessary to examine the appropriateness of the information requested, leading, moreover, to the undermining of the right to seek a review that arises from the third sentence of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003.
   Fourthly, the General Court wrongly treated the first sentence of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 as the legal basis for the Commission’s request for the preparation, compiling and processing of information which the appellant did not have at its disposal in that form.
   Fifthly, the General Court rejected the complaint relating to the overly short deadline for reply on the grounds of the appellant’s economic power — viewed in the abstract — alone, and thus on the basis of insufficient and inconsistent reasoning.
   Sixthly, the General Court disregarded the criterion of the certainty of EU legal acts in that it considered the decision requiring information to be sufficiently certain, even though the General Court itself found that the questions contained in it were formulated in vague terms. In addition, it failed to examine the specific complaints of lack of certainty and undermined the right to seek a review (see the third sentence of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003).
   Seventhly, the General Court infringed the appellant’s rights of defence, as it considered the appellant obliged to carry out assessments which could be used by the Commission in the context of an economic analysis to prove a suspected infringement of EU cartel law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-111/13: Action brought on 7 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/14

         Action brought on 7 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-111/13)
   2013/C 123/22
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 2(1), (2), (4) — (18), (20), (22) — (36); the first, second and third sentences of Article 3(3), Article 3(6)(b); Article 12; Article 13(1), (2) and (5); Article 15(1) and (2); the second sentence of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) and (3); Article 25(1); Article 33; the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 36(4) and Article36(6), (8) and the third subparagraph of Article 36(9); Article 39(4)(a) and (b), points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 39(5) and the second subparagraph thereof; Article 40(a) — (e), (g) and (h); Article 41(1)(b), (c) — (f), (h) — (q) and (s) — (u), (4)(b) and (d), (6)(a), (7), (9), (10), (11) and (12); Article 42(1); Article 43(1), (4) and (8); Article 44(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) and Annex I(1)(a), sixth and eighth indents, (b), (d), (f) and (h) and Annex I(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (1) into national law in mainland Finland and the Province of Åland or, in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Finland, pursuant to Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 28 589,60, which is to be applied from the day on which the judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 1996 in Case C-126/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris XII): Société Cadi Surgelés and Others v. Ministre des Finances and Directeur général des douanes (Free movement of goods - Common Customs Tariff - Common commercial policy - Fiscal rules applicable to French overseas departments - Goods from non-member countries)

text:
 25 . 1 . 97          1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 26/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       support of claims for the reimbursement of sums
                                                                             levied before 1 6 July 1 992 by way of droit additionnel
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    on goods from non-member countries which are not
                       of 7 November 1996                                    linked to the Community by a special agreement,
                                                                             except by claimants who have initiated legal
in Case C-126/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   proceedings or raised an equivalent claim before that
the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris XII): Société Cadi Surgelés                   date. This also applies to sums levied on such goods
and Others v. Ministre des Finances and Directeur général                    before that date by way of octroi de mer to the extent
                          des douanes (')                                   that the levying of such sums is declared unlawful in
                                                                            application of this judgment.
(Free movement of goods — Common Customs Tariff —
Common commercial policy — Fiscal rules applicable to
French overseas departments — Goods from non-member                   I 1 ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994.
                               countries)
                            ( 97/C 26/04 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 12 November 1996
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      in Case C-201/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): The
                                                                      Queen v. The Medicines Control Agency, ex parte: Smith
In Case C-126/94: reference to the Court pursuant to                  & Nephew Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Primecrown Ltd v.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal d'Instance                            The Medicines Control Agency (' )
(District Court), Paris XII for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between, on the one             (Proprietary medicinal products — Parallel imports —
hand, Societe Cadi Surgelés, Societe Sofrigu, Societe Sofroi         Direct effect of Directive 65/65/EEC — Marketing
and Societe Sofriber, and, on the other, Ministre des                                             authorization)
Finances and Directeur general des douanes — on the
interpretation of Articles 9, 12, 113 and 227 ( 2 ) of the EC                                      ( 97/C 26/05 )
Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet
and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General;                                 (Language of the case: English)
H. von Holstein, Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 November 1996 , in which it has
ruled :
                                                                     In Case C-201/94: reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High Court of
1 . It is incompatible with the EC Treaty to levy a                  Justice, Queen 's Bench Division, United Kingdom, for a
      customs duty or a charge having equivalent effect              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      which has been unilaterally introduced by a Member             court between The Queen and The Medicines Control
      State after the introduction of the Common Customs             Agency, ex parte: Smith & Nephew Pharmaceuticals Ltd
      Tariff on 1 July 1968 on goods imported directly from           and Primecrown Ltd and The Medicines Control Agency
      non-member countries which are not linked to the               — on the interpretation of Council Directive 65/65/EEC
      Community by a special agreement. However, the                  of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions
      Treaty does not preclude the levying of a charge                laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
      having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports           relating to proprietary medicinal products (2), as amended
      which, having regard to all its essential characteristics,      in particular by Council Directive 87/21 /EEC of
      must be regarded as a charge already in existence on            22 December 1986 ( 3 ), and of the obligations associated
      1 July 1968, provided that the level at which it is             with the authorization of proprietary medicinal products
      levied has not been raised. Where the level has been           — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
      raised, only the amount by which it has been raised             President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
      must be regarded as incompatible with the Treaty.               ( Rapporteur) and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
                                                                      Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and
                                                                      H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                      Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
2 . The Treaty provisions relating to customs duties and              Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 1996 , in
      charges having equivalent effect cannot be relied on in         which it has ruled :


title: Case C-439/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of 6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.

text:
21.2.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/13
     (b) does that apply notwithstanding an opinion as                   4.   Does Community law also require the payment of
           mentioned above on the basis that where the                        damages for non-material loss?
           plaintiff proves or even where the plaintiff substan-
           tiates that in the filling of the post the applicant          5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
           preferred to the plaintiff was less well-qualified than            required of its own motion to order the payment of
           the plaintiff the rule of evidence under this directive            punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
           comes into effect
     (c)   and on the basis that proof to the contrary may only          6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
           be regarded as conclusive if it leads to the factual               for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under
           finding that the candidate appointed was better                    Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
           suited or that in actual fact a non-gender-related                 Community law?
           reason was the decisive factor in the appointment of
           a less well-suited candidate?                                 7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
                                                                              limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
                                                                              does time begin to run from the day on which the
(1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.                                                      infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
(2) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.                                                       the day on which that infringement came to an end?
                                                                         8.   Does Community law require national courts to disapply
                                                                              national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
                                                                              to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
                      Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
                         (Case C-438/03)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                         guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
                          (2004/C 47/21)                                 6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
                                                                                Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-439/03)
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                      (2004/C 47/22)
case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
following questions:
1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
     in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
                                                                         pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
     Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
                                                                         Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
     of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
                                                                         case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
     full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
                                                                         following questions:
     particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?
2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an              1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
     obligation on the part of the person committing it to                    Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
     compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate                      in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
     that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?                 Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
                                                                              of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the                   full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                       particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?
     rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of
     Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way              2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an
     of punitive damages against those persons responsible                    obligation on the part of the person committing it to
     for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant                      compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate
     position?                                                                that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the             2.   If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are
     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                      Article 2(1) and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive to be
     rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of             interpreted as meaning that all services obtained in
     Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way                  connection with a listing on the stock market are to be
     of punitive damages against those persons responsible                   attributed to an exempt supply and that for that reason
     for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant                     there is no right to a deduction of input tax?
     position?
4.   Does Community law also require the payment of                     3.   If the first question is answered in the negative: is there a
     damages for non-material loss?                                          right under Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive to
                                                                             deduct input tax on the ground that the services in respect
                                                                             of which a deduction of input tax is claimed (advertising,
5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
                                                                             agent’s fees, and legal and technical advice) are used for
     required of its own motion to order the payment of
                                                                             the purposes of the undertaking’s taxable transactions?
     punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
     for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under              (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
     Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
     Community law?
7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
     limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
     does time begin to run from the day on which the
     infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
     the day on which that infringement came to an end?
8.   Does Community law require national courts to disapply
     national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
     to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessischen
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshofes by order of that Court of
                                                                        1 October 2003 in the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken
                                                                                GmbH against Stadt Frankfurt am Main
                                                                                (Case C-491/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängigen
Finanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz by order of that Court
of 20 October 2003 in the case of Kretztechnik AG                                                 (2004/C 47/24)
                    against Finanzamt Linz
                        (Case C-465/03)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2004/C 47/23)
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Hessischen Verwal-
                                                                        tungsgerichtshofes of 1 October 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 20 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken GmbH against Stadt
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Frankfurt am Main on the following questions:
European Communities by order of the Unabhängigen Fi-
nanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz of 20 October 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 5 November 2003, for a preliminary             1.   A local beverage duty bye-law defines as the subject-
ruling in the case of Kretztechnik AG against Finanzamt Linz                 matter of that duty ‘the sale of alcoholic beverages for
on the following questions:                                                  immediate consumption’, and as such a sale ‘any sale for
                                                                             consumption on the premises’. Is this duty another
1.   In becoming listed on a stock market and in issuing                     indirect tax on products subject to excise duty for the
     shares in that connection to new shareholders in return                 purposes of Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive
     for the issue price, does a public limited company                      92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general
     make a supply for consideration within the meaning of                   arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
     Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   the holding, movement and monitoring of such products,
     17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                     or is it a tax on the supply of services relating to products
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                       subject to excise duty, within the meaning of the second
     system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment? (1)             subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC?


title: Case C-423/14: Order of the President of the Court of 31 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA
   (Case C-423/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/30)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case T-21/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/19

         Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)
   (Case T-21/14)
   2014/C 61/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2013 in Case R 1846/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SANDTER 1953’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 9 448 887

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘Sander’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25; the international figurative mark with protection in the Benelux countries, Austria and France which includes the word element ‘SANDER’, for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-888/16: Action brought on 8 December 2016 — BP v FRA

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/36

         Action brought on 8 December 2016 — BP v FRA
   (Case T-888/16)
   (2017/C 053/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BP (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: E. Lazar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AHCC) of 21 April 2016 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of unlawful non-renewal decision on the one side and unlawful execution of the Judgment in case T-658/13 P (1), on the other side: EUR 63 246 for loss of earnings; EUR 26 630 to compensate the applicant for loss of pension rights for 19 months, or, such capital sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono; EUR 1 200 to reimburse legal costs paid by the applicant in pre-litigation phase, starting with the date of the draft decision of 29 January 2016 until the date of the defendant’s decision of 21 April 2016; EUR 60 000 for loss of chance to be awarded an indefinite contract, or, such sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono; EUR 50 000 for the non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of alleged errors, irregularities and harm made by the defendant during the procedure for execution of the Judgment in case T-658/13P;

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s failure to adopt lawful rules for appraisal, reclassification and renewal and related harm resulted from absence of such lawful rules, on the one side, and the delay in finalising the applicant’s staff reports and related harm resulted from the absence of such reports finalised in due time, on the other side;

               —

               declare that the defendant’s Guidelines applicable to appraisal and reclassification procedure and Rules on renewal procedure are unlawful insofar as these rules were adopted following an unlawful procedure by an author lacking appropriate competence;

               —

               exercise its full jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of its decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay default interest at the key rate of European Central Bank plus two percentage points on the amount eventually awarded or any other award of interest payment which the Court thinks just and appropriate; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the entire costs, even in the case the appeal is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the right of defence:

                           —

                           breach of right to be heard, failure of FRA’s appointing authority to hold a fair and effective hearing, and breach of Article 41 (2) (a) of the Fundamental Rights Charter;

                           —

                           breach of the second component of the right of defence (right to access the file), refusal to grant access to the personal file and to the documents used for the negative decision of 27.02.2012, breach of Articles 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulation, and breach of Article 41 (2) (b) of the Charter.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of essential procedural requirements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and conflict of interest, breach of interest of the service, manifest error of assessment and wrong application of the principle of retroactivity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to comply honestly and in a good faith with the Judgement T-658/13 P.

      (1)  Judgment of 3 June 2015, BP v FRA, T-658/13 P, EU:T:2015:356