title: Case T-166/03: Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Stefanos Alexiou and Others against the European Parliament

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 184/39
Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Stefanos Alexiou and                      The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
            Others against the European Parliament                         applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                          (Case T-166/03)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101 26.04.03, p. 40.
                          (2003/C 184/87)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Angeliki Beazoglou-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                     Varvagiannis and Others against European Parliament
12 May 2003 by Stefanos Alexiou, residing in Luxembourg,
and 7 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                 (Case T-167/03)
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                                          (2003/C 184/88)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                                (Language of the case: French)
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the              An action against the European Parliament was brought before
      annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the            13 May 2003 by Angeliki Beazoglou-Varvagiannis, residing in
      Greek islands, when travel must be through Athens or                 Uebersyren (Luxembourg) and three other officials, represented
      Piraeus;                                                             by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified          —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     changing, from an unspecified year (1993, 1996, 1997 or
      during which the applicants were officials of the                          another year but, in any event, the period during which
      European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from                     the applicants were officials of the European Parliament),
      Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-                  the procedure used for the calculation of annual expense
      nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;             of travelling to Greece in respect of the route via Brindisi
                                                                                taken into consideration for destinations to the Greater
                                                                                Athens area;
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                                alternatively:
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                 —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     to reimburse, from an unspecified year (1993, 1996, 1997
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             or the period during which the applicants were officials
                                                                                of the European Parliament), the cost of sea passage from
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                      Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts (Corfu, Igoume-
      Parliament to pay those costs.                                             nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                           —     annul all the applicants' reimbursement statements imple-
                                                                                menting the decisions whose annulment is sought;
                                                                           —     pay the applicants the entire amount not received as a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  result of the implementation of the decisions whose
                                                                                annulment is sought, together with interest at the legal
                                                                                rate;
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual                  —     order the Parliament to pay the costs, expenses and fees
travel expenses to Greece.                                                       incurred.


title: Case C-65/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 February 2016 — Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 February 2016 — Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-65/16)
   (2016/C 175/05)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istanbul Lojistik Ltd

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4 of Decision No 1/95 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Council be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State — starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State — constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty and is not, therefore, compatible with Article 4 of that decision?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to the first question is no, must Article 5 of Decision No 1/95 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Council be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State — starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State — constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction and is not, therefore, compatible with Article 5 of that decision?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/95 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Council be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible, on road safety grounds and the grounds for applying laws, for a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, to be applied, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State, starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State?

               3.

               Must Article 3(2) TFEU and Article 1(2) and (3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding, on the basis of a bilateral transport agreement concluded with Turkey, the Member State of transit from applying a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State, starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State?

               4.

               Must Article 9 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Agreement between the [EEC] and Turkey be interpreted … as meaning that a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State — starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State — entails discrimination on grounds of nationality and is not, therefore, compatible with Article 9 of that agreement?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72).


title: Case T-67/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/60

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-67/10)
   2010/C 100/88
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 final of 10 December 2009 on applying financial corrections on the EAGGF Guidance part of the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) for the measure ‘Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products’, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the view of the Kingdom of Spain the decision should be annulled on two grounds:

               First, erroneous application of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) as the irregularities which provide the basis for the financial correction agreed by the Commission did not exist since the Spanish authorities carried out the appropriate controls systematically in order to meet the requirements for support laid down in Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2) and they did so prior to the granting of the support. In addition, contrary to what was stated by the Commission in the contested decision, the Control Plan adopted by the Spanish authorities following the inspection visit did not seek to remedy a posteriori the fact that controls were not carried out, but sought exclusively to check the efficiency of those controls.

               Second, infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with the Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission departments in determining financial corrections under Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (3) since the irregularities identified by the Commission, had they existed, which the Kingdom of Spain denies, would only justify the imposition of a financial correction proportionate to the harm which could have been caused to the Union’s funds and, therefore, less than the 5 % decided upon.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

      (3)  Document C(2001) 476 of 2 March 2001.


title: Case T-696/13: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/55

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
   (Case T-696/13) (1)

   (2017/C 283/87)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-562/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Dalli v Commission (Member of the Commission — OLAF investigation — Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to require the resignation of the person concerned — Action for annulment — No actionable measure — Inadmissibility — Action for damages)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Dalli v Commission
   (Case T-562/12) (1)

   ((Member of the Commission - OLAF investigation - Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to require the resignation of the person concerned - Action for annulment - No actionable measure - Inadmissibility - Action for damages))
   (2015/C 213/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: John Dalli (St Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi, A.-M. Alamanou and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J. Baquero Cruz and J. P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the oral decision allegedly taken by the President of the Commission on 16 October 2012 to terminate the applicant’s office as a Member of the Commission and for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr John Dalli to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-335/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(g) — Exemption for the supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work, provided by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable — ‘Supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ — Organisations recognised as charitable — Serviced residence)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v État belge
   (Case C-335/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(g) - Exemption for the supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work, provided by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable - ‘Supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ - Organisations recognised as charitable - Serviced residence))
   (2016/C 098/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL

      Defendant: État belge

      Intervening party: AXA Belgium SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, among the services provided by a serviced residence, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose charitable nature must be assessed by the referring court in the light of, in particular, the factors mentioned in the present judgment, those consisting of the provision of dwellings adapted for elderly persons may benefit from the exemption referred to in that provision. The other services provided by that serviced residence may also benefit from that exemption, provided in particular that the services which serviced residences are obliged to offer pursuant to the relevant national legislation are intended to achieve the support and care of elderly persons and correspond to the services which old people’s homes are also obliged to offer in accordance with national legislation.
   It is irrelevant in this respect whether or not the operator of a serviced residence such as that at issue in the main proceedings receives a subsidy or any other form of advantage or financial support from public authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               13.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/1

         Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
   Cases where the Commission raises no objections
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   2013/C 73/01

               Date of adoption of the decision

               7.11.2012

               Reference number of State Aid

               SA.34576 (12/N)

               Member State

               Portugal

               Region

               Alto Trás-os-Montes

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Unidade de cuidados continuados Jean Piaget/Nordeste

               Legal basis

               Texto do Programa Operacional Temático Valorização do Território
               Endereço http://www.povt.qren.pt/cs2.asp?idcat=1120; Regulamento Geral FEDER e Fundo de Coesão (documento normativo sobre as modalidades de aplicação a Portugal dos fundos FEDER e Fundo de Coesão), em coerência com as disposições regulamentares comunitárias aplicáveis);
               Texto do Programa Operacional Temático Valorização do Território
               Endereço http://www.povt.qren.pt/cs2.asp?idcat=1120 — Regulamento Geral FEDER e Fundo de Coesão (documento normativo sobre as modalidades de aplicação a Portugal dos fundos FEDER e Fundo de Coesão), em coerência com as disposições regulamentares comunitárias aplicáveis); Regulamento Específico para o Domínio dos «Equipamentos Estruturantes do Sistema Urbano Nacional» (estabelece as condições de acesso e as regras gerais de atribuição de co-financiamento comunitário do FEDER às operações apresentadas no âmbito deste domínio de intervenção).

               Type of measure

               Individual aid

               Objective

               Regional development

               Form of aid

               —

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 1,897 million

               Intensity

               Measure does not constitute aid

               Duration (period)

               —

               Economic sectors

               Service activities

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Programa Operacional Temático Valorização do Território

                           Av. D. João II, Lote 1.07.2.1 — 2.o

                           1998-014 Lisboa

                           PORTUGAL

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm


title: Case T-436/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — HIT Groep v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Reasonable time)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — HIT Groep v Commission
   (Case T-436/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Reasonable time))
   (2015/C 302/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: HIT Groep BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented initially by G. van der Wal, G. Oosterhuis and H. Albers, and subsequently by G. van der Wal and G. Oosterhuis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HIT Groep BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco Campoli and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-7/99 P)

text:
C 71/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
    competent authority which forwarded the application                this case to a form of arbitrary discrimination between
    to the Commission with a favourable opinion is                     officials engaged when the decision of 7 February 1996
    obliged to give the consent in writing' allowing the              concerning the criteria for initial grading' was in force
    product to be placed on the market, or does that                   and officials, such as the appellant, engaged at a time
    authority retain a discretion not to give such consent?            when the Commission automatically refused to apply
                                                                       Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(2) Must the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 23 January 1997 under which the                    Inconsistency
    French authorities are to authorise the placing on the
    market of the product . . . notified by Ciba-Geigy
    Limited' be interpreted as requiring the French
                                                                       On the one hand the Court of First Instance held in
    Government to give its consent in writing'?
                                                                       Alexopoulou I (1) that the Commission's decision of
                                                                       1 September 1983 was contrary to the Staff Regulations,
(1) On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically      while on the other it allowed the Commission to rectify
    modified organisms, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.                     the irregularity only in part, that is with effect from
                                                                       5 October 1995.
                                                                       Such reasoning appears inconsistent also in the light of the
                                                                       previous case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the
                                                                       grading of staff, which the Commission accepts as being
Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli                    of general application.
against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   Inadequate statement of reasons
Campoli and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-7/99 P)                                The Court of First Instance fails to give a proper
                        (1999/C 71/31)                                 statement of reasons for its finding that rejection of the
                                                                       official's request for a review of his initial classification is
                                                                       not contrary to 5(3) of the Staff Regulations' inasmuch as
                                                                       it does not explain how it arrives at such a conclusion.
An appeal against the order delivered on 12 October 1998
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   (1) Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC
Campoli and the Commission of the European                                 II-683.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 January 1999 by Franco
Campoli, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari Bar.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez
                                                                       de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on
Ð set aside the order delivered by the Court of First                  17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of
    Instance on 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97                       First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    Campoli v Commission;                                              T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez
                                                                                and the European Parliament
Ð uphold the claims submitted at first instance;                                              (Case C-8/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/32)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 November
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between
                                                                       Carmen Gómez de Enterría Sanchez and the European
Breach of the principle of equal treatment                             Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 15 January 1999 by Carmen
                                                                       Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez, represented by Eric
To find the application inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks              Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
to challenge afresh, without there being any new facts, the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
decision taken by the Commission in 1985, amounts in                   Fort Rheinsheim.


title: Case C-90/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Habitats directive — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Articles 4(4) and 6(1) and (2) — Establishment of priorities for special areas of conservation and of adequate protection thereof — Failure to ensure adequate legal protection of the special areas of conservation in the Canary Islands)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-90/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - ‘Habitats’ directive - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Articles 4(4) and 6(1) and (2) - Establishment of priorities for special areas of conservation and of adequate protection thereof - Failure to ensure adequate legal protection of the special areas of conservation in the Canary Islands)
   2011/C 331/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by M. Pere, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (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) — Sites of Community importance — Conservation measures — Macaronesian biogeographical region

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that

                           —

                           by failing to establish, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, conservation priorities in relation to the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region identified by the Commission Decision of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ 2002 L 5, p. 16), and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt and apply, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disruption to species, ensuring the legal protection of the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites referred to in Decision 2002/11/EC situated in Spanish territory,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-115/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, financiere et economique by judgment of that Court of 26 March 2002 in the case of Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects against Rioglass SA and Transremar SL

text:
1.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 131/9
Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
 the European Communities against the French Republic                   cassation, chambre commerciale, financiere et econo-
                                                                        mique by judgment of that Court of 26 March 2002 in the
                                                                        case of Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects
                         (Case C-114/02)                                            against Rioglass SA and Transremar SL
                                                                                (Case C-115/02)
                        (2002/C 131/15)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/16)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March                European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation,
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     chambre commerciale, financiere et economique (Court of
represented by L. Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for           Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of
service in Luxembourg.                                                  26 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
                                                                        2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Administration
                                                                        des Douanes et Droits Indirects against Rioglass SA and
                                                                        Transremar SL on the following question:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Must Article 30 of the EC Treaty, (now, after amendment,
                                                                        Article 28 EC) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
                                                                        the implementation, pursuant to the Code de la Propriété
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations       Intellectuelle, of procedures for the detention by the customs
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply          authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State
      with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and             of the European Community which are intended, following
      of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the                 their transit through French territory, to be placed on the
      placing of biocidal products on the market (1), or at any         market in a non-member country, in the present case Poland?
      rate by failing to communicate the same, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-119/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 131/17)
The Commission claims that only a small part of Directive
98/8/EC has been transposed. France has communicated                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
transposition measures in respect of Article 3(1), (2), (3) and         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April
(6) and Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the directive. The obligations        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
imposed by the directive which required to be transposed but            represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Minas Konstantin-
have not been transposed or, at any rate, have not been                 idis, Legal Advisers.
communicated, therefore include transposition measures in
respect of Article 3(4), (5) and (7) and Articles 4, 8, 11, 12, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the directive. The             The Commission claims that the Court should:
time-limit for transposition expired on 13 May 2000.
                                                                        —     declare that, by not adopting measures to instal a
                                                                              collecting system for urban waste water from the area of
                                                                              Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from
                                                                              that area to more stringent secondary treatment before
(1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
                                                                              its discharge into the ‘sensitive area’ of the Bay of Elefsina,
                                                                              the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Articles 3(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/
                                                                              271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste-water treatment, as
                                                                              amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC (2) of


title: Case C-528/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 October 2011 — Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 October 2011 — Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet
   (Case C-528/11)
   2011/C 370/30
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad Sofia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf

      Defendant: Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national to be interpreted as meaning that it permits a Member State to assume responsibility for examining an asylum application where no personal circumstances exist in relation to the asylum seeker which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation and where at least one of the following situations exists in relation to the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of the regulation:

                           (a)

                           Facts and conclusions therefrom are set out in documents of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to the effect that the legally responsible Member State is in breach of provisions of European Union law on asylum which relate to the reception conditions for asylum seekers, access to the procedure, or the quality of the procedure for examining asylum applications;

                           (b)

                           The legally responsible Member State has not responded to a request to take back the applicant pursuant to Article 20(1) of Regulation No 343/2003, given that that regulation does not contain any provisions concerning compliance with the principle of solidarity pursuant to Article 80 TFEU?

               2.

               For the purposes of applying Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 is it possible for a national court of a Member State, before which the claim that that regulation is applicable is based on claims of an infringement of European Union law on asylum by the Member State responsible (under Article 3(1) of that regulation), to examine the infringement of that law and the consequent effects on the rights of the asylum seeker which are guaranteed to him by European Union law in the event of his transfer to the Member State responsible, where the Court of Justice of the European Union has not declared that that Member State has infringed the relevant provisions of European Union law, according to the procedure provided for by that law?
               In the event that the above question is answered in the affirmative, the following questions on establishing the criteria for an infringement of European Union law might also be answered:

                           Are only substantial infringements of European Union law to be taken into account and which criteria must the national court consider in establishing such infringements in order to apply the provision of Regulation No 343/2003 of which an interpretation is sought?

                           Where an infringement of European Union law on asylum results in the infringement of a right of any kind guaranteed to the asylum seeker by European Union law, should it only on that basis be assessed as substantial or must there also be a restriction on the infringement of the right to asylum within the meaning of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

                           Where, according to the general criteria and standards of European Union law, there is no legal basis for accepting the asylum application of the person concerned, should then only the infringement of reception conditions for asylum seekers in the legally responsible Member State responsible be examined?

               3.

               What is the content of the right to asylum under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 53 of that Charter and in conjunction with the definition in Article 2(c) and recital 12 of Regulation No 343/2003?

               4.

               Is Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 to be interpreted as meaning that it permits a national court of a Member State to find that the presumption that the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of the regulation respects the principle of non refoulement and is a safe country within the meaning of recital 2 of the preamble to that regulation is rebutted, without any declaration to that effect by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the following factors are to be taken into account:

                           —

                           the recognised supervisory responsibilities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which stem from the obligations under Article 78(1) TFEU to comply with instruments under international law on asylum and expressly under Article 21 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and

                           —

                           the facts and conclusions therefrom in documents of the Office of the UNHCR to the effect that the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of provisions of European Union law on asylum?

               5.

               Is Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, in relation to the obligation under Article 78(1) TFEU to comply with instruments under international law on asylum, to be interpreted as meaning that in the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Regulation No 343/2003, the Member States are obliged to request the Office of the UNHCR to present its views, where facts and conclusions therefrom are set out in documents of that Office to the effect that the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of provisions of European Union law on asylum?
               If this question is answered in the affirmative, the following question might also be answered:
               If such a request is not made to the Office of the UNHCR to present its views, does this constitute a substantial infringement of the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 343/2003 and an infringement of the right to good administration and the right to an effective legal remedy pursuant to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically also in the light of Article 21 of Directive 2005/85, which provides that that Office has the right to present its views when individual applications for asylum are examined?


title: Case T-421/07: Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Deutsche Post v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/46

         Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-421/07)
   (2008/C 22/86)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 September 2007‘State aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — State aid to Deutsche Post AG, invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty’;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission to institute the proceedings under Article 88(2) EC with regard to State aid C 26/07 (ex NN 25/07). That decision was notified to Germany by letter of 12 September 2007 (OJ 2007 C 245, p. 21). The proceedings begun by that decision are intended as a supplementary investigation into the proceedings which were instituted on 23 October 1999 by the Commission and in which the Commission issued a negative decision on 19 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 247, p 27). In that negative decision, the Commission found that Deutsche Post's prices for its Haus-zu-Haus-Paketdienst (house to house parcel service) were below the service-specific supplementary costs and that that aggressive discount policy was not part of its public supply obligations.
   In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes basic procedural principles. In particular, there is an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since the Commission had for years been aware of the predominant facts of the case and on 19 June 2002 issued a final decision relating thereto. In addition, the right of the Federal Republic of Germany and the applicant to participate has been infringed in that they were not given the opportunity to take a position on the contested decision before it was issued. Finally, it is submitted in that regard that there is a breach of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), since it follows from the scheme of that provision that a negative decision, such as that of 19 June 2002, is final and that the defendant cannot make facts which are subject to a final ruling the subject-matter of a renewed aid verification procedure.
   Further, the applicant submits that the defendant has infringed the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, since the contested decision does not make it clear which measures the Commission seeks to classify as State aid and, moreover, the decision contains no legal description.
   Finally, it is alleged that there is an infringement of Article 87(1) EC and Article 88 EC, since the measures referred to in the contested decision ought not to be classified as State aid.

      (1)  Council Decision (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-248/02: Action brought on 8 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/15
‘Does Article 30(1) of Directive 93/37 of 14 June 1993 (1), in           —     by forwarding incomplete information as to the quantity
so far as it allows individual contracting authorities to choose               of sludge used annually in agriculture as dry matter
either the lowest price or the most economically advantageous                  (information in that regard is completely missing for
offer as the criterion for the award of a contract, constitute                 Abruzzo and Campania and has been incorrectly forward-
a logically consistent application of the principle of free                    ed, that is to say, the information forwarded did not relate
competition which is already enshrined in Article 85 of the                    to dry matter, in respect of Tuscany and Sicily),
Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and requires that all tenders
submitted as part of a procedure for the award of a contract             —     by failing to make proper provision so that the registers
announced within the single market be assessed in such a way                   in which are entered the composition and characteristics
as not to prevent, restrict or distort comparison between                      of the sludge, as required by Annex II A to Directive 86/
them?’                                                                         278/EEC (1), are properly updated, at least as regards
                                                                               Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Campa-
                                                                               nia, Valle d’Aosta, Sicily and the Marche, and
‘Does Article 30 of Directive 93/37 of 14 June 1993, as a
strictly logical consequence, preclude Article 21 of Law No 109
of 11 February 1994 from excluding, for the award of public              —     by failing to make proper provision so that the registers
works contracts under open and restricted procedures, the                      in which are entered the quantities of sludge produced
choice by the contracting authority of the criterion of the most               (with regard to the whole of Italy) and the sludge used in
economically advantageous tender, and prescribing, as a                        agriculture (as regards Abruzzo, Campania, Tuscany and
general rule, that of the lowest price only?’                                  Sicily) are properly updated,
                                                                         the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                         Article 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, as amended
                                                                         by Article 5 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC (2), and of
                                                                         Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 86/278/EEC;
                                                                         Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Action brought on 8 July 2002 by the Commission of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
    European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         According to Article 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, as
                        (Case C-248/02)                                  amended by Article 5 of, together with Annex VI(g) to,
                                                                         Council Directive 91/692/EEC, which seeks to standardise and
                        (2002/C 202/22)                                  rationalises reports on the implementation of those directives
                                                                         concerning the environment, the Member States are to provide
                                                                         information every three years on the application of Directive
                                                                         86/278/EEC.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 July 2002
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented               Italy has forwarded inadequate and incomplete information
by Hans Stovlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.                  on the quantity of sewage sludge used in agriculture in 1995 to
                                                                         1997 and on the composition and the characteristics of the
                                                                         sludge as required by Annex II A to the directive.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Declare that:                                                            Furthermore, the Italian authorities have made no provision to
                                                                         keep up to date the registers in which are entered the
                                                                         composition and the characteristics of the sludge, as required
—     by forwarding incomplete information on the average                by Annex II A to the directive, nor have they made provision
      values for concentrations (mg/kg dry matter) on an                 to keep up to date the registers in which are entered the
      annual basis of heavy metal (cadmium, copper, nickel,              quantities of sludge produced and used in agriculture, contrary
      lead, zinc, mercury and chromium) and of the elements              to Article 10(1)(b) of the directive.
      nitrogen and phosphorus contained in sewage sludge
      (information in that regard is completely missing for
      Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Campa-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.
      nia, Valle d’Aosta and Sicily and are inadequate in respect        (2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48.
      of the Marche),
—     by failing to forward any information as to quantity
      (t/year) of sewage sludge produced as dry matter,


title: Case C-213/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-213/17)
   (2017/C 239/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 23(3) of the Dublin Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that Italy has become responsible for examining the application for international protection lodged by the applicant in that country on 23 October 2014, despite the fact that the Netherlands were the Member State primarily responsible on the basis of the applications for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Dublin Regulation, previously lodged in that country, the last of which was still under examination in the Netherlands at that time, because the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State had not yet delivered judgment in the appeal brought by the applicant against the ruling [AWB 14/13866] of the Rechtbank [Den Haag, sitting in Middelburg] of 7 July 2014 …?

               2.

               Does it follows from Article 18(2) of the Dublin Regulation that the application for international protection which was still under examination in the Netherlands when the claim request of 5 March 2015 was submitted should have been suspended by the Netherlands authorities immediately after that claim request had been submitted and should have been halted following the expiry of the period specified in Article 24 through revocation or amendment of the earlier decision of 11 June 2014 rejecting the asylum application of 4 June 2014?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, has the responsibility for examining the applicant’s application for international protection not been transferred to Italy but remained with the Netherlands authorities, because the defendant has not revoked or amended the decision of 11 June 2014?

               4.

               Did the Netherlands authorities, by not mentioning the appeal in the second asylum procedure pending before the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State in the Netherlands, fall short of the responsibility resting on them pursuant to Article 24(5) of the Dublin Regulation to supply the Italian authorities with such information as would enable those authorities to check whether Italy is the Member State responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in that regulation?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does that shortcoming lead to the conclusion that the responsibility for examining the applicant’s application for international protection has thereby not been transferred to Italy, but has remained with the Netherlands authorities?

               6.

               If the responsibility has not remained with the Netherlands, ought the Netherlands authorities then, with regard to the surrender of the applicant by Italy to the Netherlands in the context of the criminal proceedings against him, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation, in derogation from Article 3(1) of the Dublin Regulation, to have examined the application for international protection lodged by the applicant in Italy, and, by extension, ought those authorities, in all reasonableness, not to have made use of the power laid down in Article 24(1) of the Dublin Regulation to request the Italian authorities to take back the applicant?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).


title: Case C-496/07: Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/3

         Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-496/07)
   (2008/C 37/03)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, in so far as Czech domestic legislation reserves the exercise of the post of captain of a ship flying the Czech flag to persons with Czech nationality, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               Order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the above action the Commission relies on the following pleas:
   Czech domestic legislation (Law No 61/2000) places the operator of a ship under an obligation to ensure that the master of a ship flying the Czech flag is a citizen of the Czech Republic.
   That clear and completely unconditional requirement to have Czech nationality, in the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities, conflicts with the findings reached by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-405/01 (1) and C-47/02 (2). The Commission draws attention in particular to the findings in paragraph 44 of the judgment in Case C-405/01 and paragraph 63 of the judgment in Case C-47/02. The requirement laid down in Czech law that the master of a ship must be of Czech nationality is absolute. The relevant provisions of Czech law do not take into account the way in which and extent to which the master of a ship in reality exercises the powers conferred by public law, as required by the abovementioned case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The mere fact that Czech law entrusts masters of ships flying the Czech flag with powers which fall within the ambit of powers conferred by public law is not enough to warrant use of the derogation from the freedom of movement for workers laid down in Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty.
   The Commission of the European Communities is of the opinion that the Czech Republic is under an obligation to bring its domestic legislation into conformity with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, notwithstanding the fact that (according to the statements of the Czech Republic) there are currently no ships flying the Czech flag.

      (1)  Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Espagñola v Administración del Estado [2003] ECR I-10391, concerning Spanish legislation reserving the post of master and chief mate on ships flying the Spanish flag to persons with Spanish nationality.

      (2)  Case C-47/02 Albert Anker, Klaas Ras a Albertus Snoek v Federal Republic of Germany [2003] ECR I-10447, concerning German legislation reserving the post of captain on ships flying the German flag and engaged in small-scale maritime shipping (‘Kleine Seeschiffahrt’) to persons with German nationality.


title: Case F-21/15: Action brought on 5 February 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/41

         Action brought on 5 February 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-21/15)
   (2015/C 127/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision finding that the applicant could not, since his promotion to grade AST 5, claim the fixed-rate allowance for working overtime and application for material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul decision No 0112/2014 removing the applicant’s fixed-rate allowance for working overtime with effect from 1 July 2014, adopted on 3 June 2014 by the Acting Director of Administration and Finance;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant that allowance again with effect from the same date, together with interest at the rate of the ECB’s refinancing operations on the amount corresponding to allowances that are not granted to him, from the date on which they should have been paid until payment in full;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant compensation for the material harm which he may incur from the contested decision — a sum provisionally estimated at EUR 1  000 — and as compensation for non-material damage a sum to be assessed by the Tribunal;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.


title: Case T-638/14: Action brought on 26 August 2014  — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/17

         Action brought on 26 August 2014 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)
   (Case T-638/14)
   2014/C 380/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Riviera, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA (Espirito Santo, Brazil)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               refuse registration of Community trade mark No 1 0 3 29  721 FRISA to distinguish goods in Class 29 and services in Classes 35 and 39.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘FRISA’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 35 and 39 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 3 29  721

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word element ‘Frinsa’ for goods in Class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected in its entirety

      Pleas in law: In its decision of 1 July 2014 in Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4, the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not proceed to examine the applicant’s arguments since it confined itself to deciding the cases in an identical manner, examining only the proof of use submitted during the proceedings.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 August 2003 in Case T-198/01 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional suspension)

text:
29.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 289/23
L. Levi, avocats, against the Court of Justice of the European              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application for annul-                                                 INSTANCE
ment of the decision of the appointing authority of 11 March
2002 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the adminis-
trator’s post referred to in notice of vacancy CJ 62/01 — the                                         of 1 August 2003
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 Septem-                in Case T-198/01 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
ber 2003 in which it:                                                               v Commission of the European Communities
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                           to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing
                                                                            up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional
                                                                                suspension)
(1) OJ C 305 of 7 December 2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 289/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 3 July 2003
                                                                            In Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
in Case T-10/01: Lichtwer Pharma AG v Office for                            established at Ilmenau, (Germany), represented by G. Schohe
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       and C. Arhold, lawyers, with an address for service in
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                  Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by
                                                                            Schott Glas, established at Mainz (Germany), represented by
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition
                                                                            U. Soltész, lawyer — application for extension of the suspen-
              withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                            sion of the operation, ordered in this case by order of the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2002, of
                          (2003/C 289/49)                                   Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June
                                                                            2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische
                   (Language of the case: German)                           Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2000 L 62, p. 30) — the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
                                                                            1 August 2003 in which he:
In Case T-10/01, Lichtwer Pharma AG, established in Berlin,
represented by H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein,                   1.    Suspends the operation until 17 February 2004 of Article 2 of
lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                        Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Walbroeck and                        State aid C 44/2001 implemented by Germany for Technische
G. Schneider), Biofarma, formerly Orsem SARL, established in                      Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by V. Gil Vega and
A. Ruiz López, lawyers: Appeal against the decision of the
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                   2.    Makes that suspension subject to the following conditions: first,
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 November                       that the four conditions laid down in the second point of the
2000 (Case R 586/1999-2) relating to opposition proceedings                       operative part of the order made today in Case T-378/02 R
between Lichtwer Pharma AG and Biofarma, the Court of First                       should be satisfied by the applicant, especially as regards the
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,                             dates fixed therein; second, that the applicant should before
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                31 December 2003 at the latest repay to the Bundesanstalt für
has made an order on 3 July 2003, the operative part of which                     Vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben an additional sum of
is as follows:                                                                    EUR 256 000 and that it should lodge at the Registry of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance and at the Commission, within one week
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.                                             of making that payment, and by 7 January 2004 at the latest,
                                                                                written proof of that payment; third, that it should lodge at the
2.    The applicant and the intervener must be ordered to bear their              Registry of the Court of First Instance and at the Commission,
      own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.                   by 6 February 2004 at the latest, a detailed report drawn up
                                                                                by an accountant on its financial situation at 31 December
                                                                                2003 and, in particular, the additional sum which it would be
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                         able to pay by 30 June 2004 at the latest, if judgment in the
                                                                                case in the main proceedings should not have been given by
                                                                                that lastmentioned date.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/24                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          29.11.2003
3.    Reserves the costs, including those incurred by the intervener.        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 1 August 2003
                                                                             in Case T-378/02 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing
                                                                             up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional
                                                                                suspension)
                       of 9 September 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 289/52)
in Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx v Commission of the                                               (Language of the case: German)
                   European Communities (1)
(Open competition — Failure to award the minimum number                      In Case T-378/02 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
of points required for the oral test — Omission from the                     established at Ilmenau, (Germany), represented by G. Schohe
reserve list — Reasons — Consistency between the complaint                   and C. Arhold, lawyers, with an address for service in
and the application — Application unfounded in part and
                                                                             Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                        inadmissible in part)                                ties (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by
                                                                             Schott Glas, established at Mainz (Germany), represented by
                                                                             U. Soltész, lawyer — application for suspension of the
                           (2003/C 289/51)                                   operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2002) 2147
                                                                             final on State aid by Germany in favour of Technische
                                                                             Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, the President of the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: French)                           Instance has made an order on 1 August 2003 in which he:
                                                                             1.    Suspends the operation, until 31 October 2003, of Article 2
                                                                                of Commission Decision C (2002) 2147 final on State aid
                                                                                C 44/2001 granted by Germany in favour of Technische
In Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx, a member of the temporary                          Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,                  2.    Makes that suspension of operation subject to the following
É. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers, with an address for                             conditions: first, that before 30 September 2003 at the latest
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                          the applicant should repay to the Thüringer Aufbaubank the
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios) —                          sum of EUR ... and within a week of making that repayment
application for annulment of the decision of the selection                         and by 7 October 2003 at the latest should lodge at the
board in competition COM/B/1/00 awarding the applicant a                           Registry of the Court of First Instance and at the Commission
mark lower than the minimum required and not entering him                          written proof of that repayment; second, that the first-priority
on the reserve list — the Court of First Instance (Third                           mortgage security granted to the Thüringer Aufbaubank over
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and                         the land on which the fourth furnace stands should be released
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            and re-granted to the Bundesanstalt für Vereinigungsbedingte
9 September 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                       Sonderaufgaben by 10 October 2003 at the latest, in order to
                                                                                guarantee the latter’s right to repayment of the balance of the
                                                                                sale price under asset deal 1; third, that by 10 October 2003
1.    The application is dismissed;                                                at the latest Mr Geiß should lodge security, similar to the
                                                                                personal surety jointly and severally liable with the principal
                                                                                debtor lodged on 3 March 1998 by him in respect of the
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs.                                   repayment of the loan made by the Thüringer Aufbaubank, in
                                                                                favour of the Bundesanstalt für Vereinigungsbedingte Son-
                                                                                deraufgaben in respect of the balance of the sale price under
                                                                                asset deal 1; fourth, that by 17 October 2003 at the latest
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.02.
                                                                                written proof of the novation of the securities, required in
                                                                                accordance with the second and third conditions set out above,
                                                                                should be lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance
                                                                                and at the Commission;


title: Case F-136/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — HD v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for granting — Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations — Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from other sources — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Recovery of undue payment)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/40

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — HD v Parliament
      (Case F-136/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions for granting - Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations - Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from other sources - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Recovery of undue payment))
      (2016/C 364/48)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: HD (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment, first, of the Parliament’s decision to put the applicant’s situation into order as regards the allocation of the education allowance and, second, of the decision to recover the amounts which the applicant unduly received in that regard.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 7, 11/1/2016, p. 38.


title: Case C-449/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/38

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants
   (Case C-449/06)
   (2006/C 326/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophiane Gysen

      Defendant: Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants
   Question referred
   May, or must, Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) [No 259/68] of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (1) and Annex VII thereto, entitled ‘Remuneration …’, Section 1: Family allowances, which comprise

               (a)

               household allowance,

               (b)

               dependent child allowance,

               (c)

               education allowance,

         be regarded as constituting what the national rules in question describe as an ‘… international social security convention in force in Belgium’?

      (1)  JO L 56, p. 1.