title: Case C-102/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brindisi — Ufficio per le Indagini Preliminari by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Gianfranco Casale and Giuseppe Eugenio Caroli

text:
26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/29
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                    3.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
Brindisi — Ufficio per le Indagini Preliminari by order of                     of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
that Court of 14 January 2003 in the criminal proceedings                      (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
 against Gianfranco Casale and Giuseppe Eugenio Caroli                         fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
                                                                               by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
                                                                               as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
                                                                               Member State which does not make it a punishable
                         (Case C-102/03)                                       offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                                                                               disclosure and the provision of accurate information
                                                                               where statements are made which, although aimed at
                                                                               deceiving members or the public with a view to securing
                         (2003/C 101/49)                                       an unjust profit, are the consequence of estimated
                                                                               valuations which, taken individually, depart from actual
                                                                               values to an extent not greater than a certain threshold?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    4.   Irrespective of progressive limits or thresholds, must
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brindisi                     those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g) of the
— Ufficio per le Indagini Preliminari (Brindisi District Court,                EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
Office of the Investigating Judge) of 14 January 2003, received                (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
at the Court Registry on 5 March 2003, for a preliminary                       fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Gianfranco Casale                   by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
and Giuseppe Eugenio Caroli on the following questions:                        as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
                                                                               Member State which does not make it a punishable
                                                                               offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                                                                               disclosure and the provision of accurate information
1.   With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt                  where the false statements or the fraudulent omissions
     ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established                 and, thus, the disclosures and statements which do not
     by the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/                     give a true and fair view of the company’s assets and
     EEC (1) and Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2)), must the directives               liabilities and financial position do not distort ‘to an
     themselves and in particular the combined provisions of                   appreciable extent’ the company’s assets, liabilities and
     Article 44(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of              financial position (even though it is for the national
     the first directive (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2),              legislature to define the concept of ‘appreciable distor-
     (3) and (4) of the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC),               tion’?
     as consolidated by Directive 83/349 ( 3) and Directive 90/
     605 ( 4)), be interpreted as meaning that that legislation
     precludes a law of a Member State which, in amending
     the system of penalties already in force in respect of
     company law offences concerning the infringement of the
     obligations imposed in order to safeguard the principle of           5.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
     public and accurate information on companies, lays                        of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
     down a sanctionative system which in the specific                         (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
     instance is not informed by the criteria of effectiveness,                fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
     proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions                       by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
     imposed in order to ensure that that principle is upheld?                 as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
                                                                               Member State which, in response to an infringement by
                                                                               companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
                                                                               and the provision of accurate information imposed on
2.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
                                                                               them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members
     of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
                                                                               and third parties’, allows only members and creditors to
     (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                                                                               seek imposition of a penalty, thereby excluding third
     fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
                                                                               parties from any general and effective protection?
     by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
     as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
     Member State which does not make it a punishable
     offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
     disclosure and the provisions of accurate information on
     certain company documents (including the balance sheet               6.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
     and the profit and loss account) where the disclosure                     of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
     of false company accounts or the failure to provide                       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
     information result in a distortion of the financial results               fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
     for a given period, or a distortion in the net assets, which              by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
     does not exceed a certain percentage threshold?                           as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
       Member State which, in response to the infringement by                      particular, to provide an opportunity for persons involved
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure                        in an action subsequently brought before the civil courts
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on                        — those considering bringing such an action, those who
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members                   anticipate that the action will be brought against them,
       and third parties’, provides for prosecution machinery and                  or third parties otherwise concerned by such an action
       a sanctionative system which are markedly differentiated,                   — to obtain advance clarification of the facts (with which
       whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment                   they are perhaps not entirely familiar), so as to enable
       upon complaint being made, together with more serious                       them better to assess their position, particularly also with
       and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements               regard to the issue of identification of the party against
       occasioning loss to members and creditors?                                  whom proceedings must be instituted?
                                                                             —     If so, can the provision in that case constitute a measure
( 1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-                     within the meaning of Article 24 of the Brussels Conven-
     ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests           tion?
     of members and others, are required by Member States of
     companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of
     Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
     equivalent throughout the Community (English special edition...:
     Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).
( 2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
     Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
     types of companies (OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11).
( 3) Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on
     the Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ
     L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1).                                                      Removal from the register of Case C-435/01 ( 1)
( 4) Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending
     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/
     EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those                                       (2003/C 101/51)
     Directives (OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60).
                                                                             By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-435/01: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by order of that Court of 12 December 2002                         (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
in the case of St Paul Dairy Industries NV against Unibel
                              Exser BVBA
                            (Case C-104/03)
                            (2003/C 101/50)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-324/02 ( 1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                (2003/C 101/52)
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amster-
dam (Regional Court of Appeal, Amsterdam) of 12 December
2002, received at the Court Registry on 6 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of St Paul Dairy Industries NV
against Unibel Exser BVBA on the following questions:                        By order of 10 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
—      Does the provision in Article 186 et seq. of the Nether-              from the register of Case C-324/02: Commission of the
       lands Code of Civil Procedure concerning the ‘preliminary             European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
       hearing of witnesses prior to the bringing of proceedings’
       come within the scope of the Brussels Convention in light
       of the fact also that, as provided for in that legislation, it        (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
       seeks not only to enable material evidence to be taken
       from witnesses shortly after the facts in dispute and to
       prevent evidence from being lost but also, and in


title: Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-294/934, T-392/93 and T-413/93

text:
28.8.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/45
In the applicant’s view, Directive 92/12/EEC is contrary to:                   Removal from the register of Case T-538/93 (1)
— the Community principle of the rule of law, inasmuch as
    it contains contradictory and unclear rules;                                               (1999/C 246/90)
— the Treaty objectives in the establishment of the internal
    market under Article 14 EC (ex Article 7a);                                           (Language of the case: English)
— the prohibition under Article 25 EC (ex Article 12) of
    customs duties and charges having equivalent effect;                By order of 30 March 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance
— the prohibitions under Article 28 EC (ex Article 30) and              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    Article 29 EC (ex Article 34);                                      the register of Case T-538/93: Joh Harris v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
— Article 93 EC (ex Article 99), authorising harmonisation              ties.
    of indirect taxation;
— the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as it is not
                                                                        (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
    suited to the internal market;
— the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;
— a series of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as
    freedom to exercise a profession, right of ownership, and
    commercial and economic freedom.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-548/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/91)
       Removal from the register of Case T-278/93 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/88)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)                       By order of 1 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                        Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Fourth                   European Communities has ordered the removal from the
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance            register of Case T-548/93: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Council of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the European Communities.
the register of Case T-278/93: David Alwyn Jones and
Mary Bridget Jones v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
(1) OJ C 165 of 2.7.1992.
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases                              Removal from the register of Case T-72/95 (1)
            T-294/934, T-392/93 and T-413/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/92)
                        (1999/C 246/89)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 30 March 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance            By order of 17 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the register of Cases T-294/93: Sean Coughlan v Council                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-72/95:
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v
Communities and T-413/93: Patrick Heffernan v Council of                Commission of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.
(1) OJ C 158 of 10.6.1993 and C 197 of 21.7.1993.


title: Case T-868/16: Action brought on 11 December 2016 — QI and Others v Commission and ECB

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/58

         Action brought on 11 December 2016 — QI and Others v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-868/16)
   (2017/C 030/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: QI (Athens, Greece) and 15 other applicants (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission, European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Union and/or the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to compensate for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage that the applicants suffered from their illegal participation in the restructuring of the Greek government debt, due to the activation of the retrofit Collective Action Clauses;

               —

               alternatively, order the Union and/or the European Central Bank (ECB) to compensate the applicants for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage suffered from the illegal exclusion of Greece’s official sector creditors from the restructuring of the Greek government debt;

               —

               in any case, order the ECB to compensate the applicants for the damages described in the application for each applicant emanating from the illegal exclusion of the ESCB from the restructuring of the Greek government debt;

               —

               order the ECB and/or the Union to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions were taken ultra vires and contrary to Articles 120-126, 127 and 352(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions regarding in particular the ESCB’s exclusion from the restructuring violate Article 123 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate the applicants’ right to property protected under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate free movement of capital protected under Article 63 TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate the applicants’ right to equal treatment protected under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt by order of that court of 11 June 1997 in the case brought by Skandia Insurance Company (publ), 103 50 Stockholm (Case C-241/97)

text:
No C 252/22                    EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 8 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsratt                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
by order of that court of 11 June 1997 in the case brought                   Cassatie van Belgie by judgment of that court of 30 June
by Skandia Insurance Company (publ), 103 50 Stockholm                        1997 in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against
                                                                                Gerdina Lustig
                                Case C-241 /97)
                                                                                ( Case C-244/97 )
                                 ( 97/C 252/44
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/45
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Regeringsratt                        European Communities by judgment of the Hof van
of 11 June 1997, which was received at the Court Registry                    Cassatie van Belgie ( Belgian Court of Cassation ) of 30 June
on 2 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case                         1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 July 1997, for a
brought by Skandia Insurance Company ( publ ) on the                         preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor
following questions:                                                         Pensioenen against Gerdina Lustig on the following
                                                                             question:
1 . Is it compatible with Article 18 ( 1 ) of Directive 73/
        239/EEC { l ), as amended by Article 26 of Directive                 Is Article 49 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71
        92/49/EEC (2 ) and with Article 21 ( 1 ) of Directive 79/            in conjunction with Article 45 of that Regulation to be
        267/EEC ( 3 ), as amended by Article 27 of Directive                 interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned
        92/96/EEC (4), for national legislation to prescribe                 fulfils the conditions laid down by one legislation for
        that, so far as an insurance company's free assets ( i.e.            entitlement to an old-age pension, albeit a limited one,
        those assets not used to cover the technical provisions )            without having recourse to periods of insurance completed
        are concerned, the insurance company may not,                        under another legislation whose conditions of pension
        without special administrative authorization, own                    entitlement are not satisfied, the competent national
        more shares in a domestic or foreign joint-stock                     authority is nevertheless obliged to take into account
        company than corresponds to 5 % of the votes                         periods completed under the latter legislation where that
        attached to all the shares ?                                         could result in the award of a greater old-age pension up
                                                                             until such time as the conditions laid down under the
                                                                             latter legislation are fulfilled ?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative :
2.      Are the aforementioned Articles of the Directive of
        such a character, as regards clarity and so forth, that
        they have the consequence that a national court must                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
        disregard a national provision having the tenor                      Cassation, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 25 June
        described above when called upon to examine the task                 1997 in the case of Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc
        of examining the permissibility of an insurance                      Schoonbroodt and Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt v.
        company's investments of its free assets ?                                                          Belgian State
                                                                                ( Case C-247/97)
(') First Council Directive ( 73/239/EEC ) of 24 July 1993 on the
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                                                ( 97/C 252/46 )
       provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business
       of direct insurance other than life assurance ( OJ No L 228 ,
       16 . 8 . 1973 , p. 3 ).
 ( 2 ) Council Directive ( 92/49/EEC) of 18 June 1992 on the                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                  European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
       provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance      Cassation ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 25 June 1997,
       and amending Directives 73/329/EEC and 88/357/EEC ( OJ No             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1997,
       L 228 , 11 . 8 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marcel
 ( 3 ) First Council Directive ( 79/267/EEC ) of 5 March 1979 on the
                                                                              Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt and Transports A. M.
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business       Schoonbroodt v. Belgian State, on the following questions:
       of direct life assurance ( OJ No L 63 , 13 . 3 . 1979 , p. 1 .).
 ( 4 ) Council Directive ( 92/96/EEC ) of 10 November 1992 on the
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                   Are tanks fixed to containers equipped with a
       provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending              refrigeration system and intended for long-distance road
       Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/61 9/EEC ( OJ No L 360, 9 . 12 .
                                                                              haulage to be regarded as ' standard' tanks within the
       1992, p. 1 ).
                                                                              meaning of Article 112 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 918/83
                                                                              setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs
                                                                              duty (*), as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1315/88 ( 2),
                                                                              where :


title: Case C-517/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 4 October 2016 — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 4 October 2016 — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku
   (Case C-517/16)
   (2017/C 022/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Stefan Czerwiński

      Respondent: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Can the classification, made by a Member State in a declaration submitted pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, of a particular benefit as concerning a specific branch of social security referred to in Article 3 of that regulation be subject to assessment by a national authority or court?

               (2)

               Does a bridging pension arising under the Polish Law of 19 December 2008 on bridging pensions (Dziennik Ustaw of 2015, item 965, as subsequently amended) constitute an old-age benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004?

               (3)

               Does the exclusion — in relation to pre-retirement benefits — of the principle of aggregation of periods of insurance (Article 66 of Regulation No 883/2004 and recital 33 thereof) perform a protective function in the field of social security arising from Article 48(a) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union?


title: Case C-523/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2011 — Laurence Prinz v Region Hannover

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2011 — Laurence Prinz v Region Hannover
   (Case C-523/11)
   2012/C 13/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laurence Prinz

      Defendant: Region Hannover

      Question referred

   Does it constitute a restriction of the right to freedom of movement and residence conferred on citizens of the European Union by Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, which is not justified under Community law, if pursuant to the Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz, a German national, who has her permanent residence in Germany and attends an education establishment in a Member State of the European Union, is only awarded an education grant for attending that education establishment abroad for one year because when she commenced her stay abroad she had not already had her permanent residence in Germany for at least three years?


No C 77/ 10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 3 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-108/95 (')                   from the register of Case C-252/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 77/22 )                              European Communities v. French Republic .
By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of             f 1 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/95 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( 1 )
                                                                                96/C 77/25 )
                                                                       By order of 6 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Removal from the register of Case C-316/94 (')                   from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( reference for a
                           ( 96/C 77/23 )                              preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
                                                                       Caen ): criminal proceedings against Dominique Luback.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
from the register of Case C-316/94 ( reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
Bruxelles ): Belgian State v. Turner International Sales Ltd
and Coditel Brabant SA .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/95 ( )
(') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 96/C 77/26 )
                                                                       By order of 19 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C- 162/95 ( reference for a
      Removal from the register of Case C-252/95 ( )                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Nancy ):
                           ( 96/C 77/24 )                              criminal proceedings against Philippe Baumert and Jean
                                                                       Loup Dirler.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
                     of 1 February 1996                                Commission of 6 October 1994 requiring the applicant to
in Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert v. Commission of the
                                                                       repay the sum of Bfr 215 354 unduly paid by way of
                                                                       household allowance and, second, an order requiring the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Commission to repay the sums deducted from the
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue                   applicant's salary since November 1994, together with
                              payment)                                 default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum — the Court of
                           ( 96/C 77/27 )                              First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
                                                                       President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges;
                                                                       B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February
                                                                       1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1.    Dismisses the action .
In Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert, an official of the                  2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Kraainem       ( Belgium ),       represented     by     Georges
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —


title: Case T-111/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Studies received by the Commission concerning the transposition of directives on the environment — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Specific and individual assessment — Compatibility with the Aarhus Convention — Overriding public interest — Consequences of exceeding the period for the adoption of an express decision — Extent of the obligation actively to disseminate environmental information)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Commission
   (Case T-111/11) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Studies received by the Commission concerning the transposition of directives on the environment - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Specific and individual assessment - Compatibility with the Aarhus Convention - Overriding public interest - Consequences of exceeding the period for the adoption of an express decision - Extent of the obligation actively to disseminate environmental information)
   2013/C 313/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver and C. Zadra, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, initially, for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents on the conformity of the Member States’ legislation with European Union environmental law and then for annulment of the Commission’s subsequent express decision of 30 May 2011 refusing in part access to some of those documents.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ClientEarth and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case T-73/15: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille on the front of a car) (European Union trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/45

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille on the front of a car)
   (Case T-73/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 419/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2014 (Case R 1796/2014-2) relating to the applicant’s Community trade mark application

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-824/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/51

         Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)
   (Case T-824/16)
   (2017/C 022/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kiosked Oy Ab (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (Brussels, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘K’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 112 969

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 279/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) of 21 September 2016, in case No. R0279/2016-4 to accept the opposition by VRT, NV van publiek recht and reject the registration of International registration designating European No W01112969 K (fig.) (hereinafter the ‘K LOGO’) for the following services in classes 35 ‘Advertising, business management, business administration, office functions’ and 42 ‘Design and development of computer software’ and allows the K LOGO to proceed for registration for the above said services;

               —

               order the Opponent to bear all the Appellant’s costs of the opposition proceedings, including the costs of legal representation, in accordance with the cost specification to be submitted by the Appellant within the deadline referred to in Article 85 of EUTMR, and should such specification fail to be submitted, in accordance with the relevant legislation.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-385/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): F. W. L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Free movement of workers — Tax convention — Netherlands rules on the avoidance of double taxation)

text:
C 31/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.2.2003
A. Dal Ferro) appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of
8 June 2000, in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/                                              (Fifth Chamber)
98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-
2193, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                                   of 12 December 2002
to the proceedings being: Camar Srl, established in Florence
(Italy), (avocats: W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà),               in Case C-324/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
applicant at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97                the Finanzgericht Münster): Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v
and T-117/98, Tico Srl, established in Padua (Italy), (avocats:                                    Finanzamt Steinfurt (1)
W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà), applicant at first
instance in Case T-117/98, Council of the European Union                     (Freedom of establishment — Tax provisions — Corporation
(Agent: by F. Ruggeri Laderchi), defendant at first instance in              tax — Covert distribution of profits — Tax credit —
Case T-260/97, French Republic (Agents: C. Vasak and G. de                             Coherence of the tax system — Tax evasion)
Bergues) intervener at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96
and T-260/97, and Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted                                          (2003/C 31/03)
by F. Quadri), intervener at first instance in Case T-79/96, —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                                     (Language of the case: German)
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                                   in the European Court Reports)
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the
                                                                             In Case C-324/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in
                                                                             EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary
which it:
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH and Finanzamt Steinfurt, on the
                                                                             interpretation of Article 43 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the
1.    Set aside the judgment of 8 June 2000 in the Court of First            Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
      instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98                A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
      Camar and Tico v Commission and Council in so far as it                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      allowed, in Case T-117/98, the application for annulment of            on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
      the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities
      of 23 April 1998 rejecting the application made by Camar Srl           Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as precluding a measure such as
      and Tico Srl on the basis of Article 16(3) of Council Regulation       that contained in Paragraph 8a(1), Head 2, of the Körperschaft-
      (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common                      steuergesetz (Law on corporation tax).
      organisation of the markets in the banana sector;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3.    Dismisses the application annulment in Case T-117/98 as
      inadmissible;                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
4.    Order Camar Srl and Tico Srl to pay the costs in Case T-117/           in Case C-385/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      98;                                                                    the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): F. W. L. de Groot v
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1)
5.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal               (Free movement of workers — Tax convention — Nether-
      proceedings.                                                                   lands rules on the avoidance of double taxation)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-385/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 31/3
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                      cation for annulment of Council Decision 2001/469/EC of
court between F. W. L. de Groot and Staatssecretaris van                       14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty                European Community of the Agreement between the Govern-
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of                         ment of the United States of America and the European
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                       Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                             programs for office equipment (OJ 2001 L 172, p. 1), the Court
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-                       President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,                            P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                         H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-                  a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
trar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                               1.    Annuls Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001
1.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39                  concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community
      EC) precludes rules such as those at issue in the main                         of the Agreement between the Government of the United States
      proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down                of America and the European Community on the coordination
      in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby                 of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment;
      a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable
      by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of         2.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
      that income and of his personal tax advantages because, during
      the year in question, he also received income in another Member
      State which was taxed in that State without his personal and             (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
      family circumstances being taken into account.
2.    Community law contains no specific requirement with regard to
      the way in which the State of residence must take into account
      the personal and family circumstances of a worker who, during
      a particular tax year, received income in that State and in
      another Member State, except that the conditions governing the
      way in which the State of residence takes those circumstances
      into account must not constitute discrimination, either direct or
      indirect, on grounds of nationality, or an obstacle to the exercise                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty.
                                                                                of 10 December 2002
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                               in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                               Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v
                                                                               Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
                                                                               supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                                       SA (1)
                       of 12 December 2002                                     (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
                                                                               sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis —
in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communi-                          Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability
            ties v Council of the European Union ( 1)                          to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and
                                                                                intended for export to non-member countries)
(International agreements — Community competence —
Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy
Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes                                                     (2003/C 31/06)
                        for office equipment)
                            (2003/C 31/05)                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                               In Case C-491/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-281/01, Commission of the European Communities                       EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s
(Agents: H. van Lier and B. Martenczuk) v Council of the                       Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) for a
European Union (Agents: J.-P. Jacqué and E. Karlsson): Appli-                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case T-110/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Time-limit for amendment of the form of order sought — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council
   (Case T-110/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Time-limit for amendment of the form of order sought - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 304/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García, V. Piessevaux and G. Ramos Ruano, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it included the name of Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

               3.

               Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction;

               4.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction, from its entry into force, on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone Adriatica SpA against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/97)

text:
 5 . 4 . 97          I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/21
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone
                                                                       Adriatica SpA against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 (') OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994, p. 13 ,
     OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994, p . 22 .                                                    ( Case T-17/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/43
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 January 1997 by Miguel Vicente                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Nunez against the Commission of the European                           Instance on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone Adriatica
                             Communities
                                                                       SpA, represented by Bruno Elia and Ivano Vigliotti, of the
                            ( Case T-7/97)                             Genoa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                            ( 97/C 108/42 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                         should :
                                                                       — annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 173
An action against the Commission of the European                           of the EC Treaty, the finding by which the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          Commission, on 11 November 1996 , rejected
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
                                                                           Viglienzone Adriatica SpA's application for
1997 by Miguel Vicente-Nunez, residing at Krainem                          prequalification for call for tenders No 96/C 177/08
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege                concerning the control of food aid,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       — if necessary, annul or in any event declare
                                                                           inapplicable, under Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                point 10, paragraph ( c ) (4 ) (in so far as it relates to
                                                                           the list of subsidiaries in the Member States of the
                                                                           European Union ) and the first sentence of the third
— annul the decision of the Commission of 22 March                         paragraph of point 12 ( in so far as it excludes the
      1996 , addressed to the applicant on 27 March and                    possibility of challenging decisions of the scrutiny
      received on 28 March, inasmuch as it rejected his                    committee ) of notice of tender No 96/C 177/08
      request of November 1995 to be reclassified in                       concerning 'European Union food aid/food security'
      another grade on the basis of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the                and 'prequalification of firms for participation in the
      Staff Regulations,                                                   forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
                                                                           provision of services relating to the coordination of
                                                                           consignments and quality and quantity control of
— annul in so far as necessary the decision of the                         foodstuffs, supplies as food aid',
      Commission of 16 October rejecting the complaint
      lodged by the applicant on 27 June 1996 against that
      decision,                                                        — adopt any other measure considered necessary,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant is an company whose application for
                                                                       prequalification for the purposes of notice of tender No 96/
The applicant, an official in Grade A 6, Step 2, relies on             C 177/08 concerning 'European Union food aid/food
the same plea in law as in the action which he brought                 security' and 'prequalification of firms for participation in
against the Commission of the European Communities on                  the forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
27 June 1996 (T-100/96 ), alleging that Article 32 of the              provision of services relating to the coordination of
Staff Regulations and the sixth and eighth paragraphs of               consignments and quality and quantity control of
Article 2 of the Commission's decision of 1 September                  foodstuffs, supplies as food aid' ( J ) was rejected.
1983 have been infringed and that the principle of equal
treatment has been breached. According to the applicant,
the Commission has, moreover, disregarded the level and                In support of its claims, the applicant alleges, first,
extent of his experience prior to his joining the                      infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. It states that the
Commission .                                                           duty to state reasons is particularly important in the case
                                                                       of measures which affect the legal position of the
                                                                       addressees, and that the contested measure has a
                                                                       considerable legal impact on Viglienzone, in so far as it
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/22           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5 . 4 . 97
excludes it from the procedure and consequently from the                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
conclusion of renewable four-year contracts in private
tendering procedures ( involving for the first four-year                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period a sum of at least ECU 18 million); in other words,
once the contracts are concluded, they are capable of                   The applicant, who was engaged on 1 December 1994 as
excluding for an indefinite period, as regards those not                a member of the temporary staff in Grade B 3 at the
allowed to participate, the possibility of gaining access to            Commission, challenges the decision to impose on her the
the sector or of continuing to operate in it.                           disciplinary measure of termination of her employment
                                                                        without notice, provided for in Article 50 ( 1 ) of the
The applicant also claims that any purported imposition                 Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
of the condition, for admission to competitive bidding for
                                                                        European Communities ( CEOS ), on the ground that she
the supply of services, that candidates must have a                     had furnished false information as to her qualifications.
subsidiary in Community countries other than that in
which they are established infringes the Community rules
on services and contracts. The applicant states that, at a              The applicant alleges, in the first place, infringement of
meeting with DG VIII, the Director made it clear that, in               Articles 12 and 50 of the CEOS and the third paragraph
adopting the contested decision, importance had been                    of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest
attached to the fact that the applicant had not indicated in            error of assessment. She points out, in this regard, that she
its application that it had ' branch offices' in Community              fulfils the general and particular qualifications required by
countries. In so far as that requirement may be a                       the vacancy notice even if she did not possess, as she had
manifestation of a new Commission policy, the applicant                 stated in her application form, a secondary school
considers that participation in a tendering procedure for               diploma. The applicant points out that she holds a
the award of a contract cannot have applied to them a                   university degree in the specific field mentioned in the
policy adopted by a Commission department which is not                  vacancy notice and can show evidence of professional
clearly set out in the notice of tender.                                experience in excess of the minimum required. She
                                                                        therefore concludes that the inaccurate information which
In any event, the applicant considers that a European                   she furnished in her application form did not mislead the
Economic Interest Grouping or a ' dependency thereof in                 Administration as to her professional abilities and that,
which an undertaking has a holding' cannot be regarded                  accordingly, it could not have been a determining factor in
as a subsidiary of that undertaking. It states in that                  her being employed , as the defendant maintains .
connection that, from informal contacts with other firms
participating in the procedure and from information                     The applicant claims, moreover, that the authority
obtained from those responsible for the sector, it has                  empowered to conclude contracts of employment cannot
emerged that a number of those prequalified were selected               terminate her contract on the ground that a diploma is
on the basis that they had met the requirement of what                  missing, since it is not competent to verify the conditions
DG VIII has defined as ' branch offices' by setting up a                governing access to the selection procedure for temporary
grouping of that kind shortly before submitting their                   staff.
applications.
(') OJ No C 177, 20 . 6 . 1996 , p . 9 .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea
   against the Commission of the European Communities                                           ( Case T-26/97 )
                          ( Case T-21/97)                                                         97/C 108/45 )
                           ( 97/C 108/44
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 6 February
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 January                      1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands),
 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea, residing at Brussels, represented              represented by W. Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the
 by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel                 Amsterdam and Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N.
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de                          Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe .
 Cessange .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul     the    decision     of      the Director-General   of       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of
     Personnel and Administration of 7 May 1996                               8 January 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
     terminating the applicant's contract as a member of                      respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
     the temporary staff on 1 September 1996 ,                                countries and territories P ),


title: Case C-650/11: Order of the Court of 10 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts) — Ilgvars Brunovskis v Lauku atbalsta dienests (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Implementation of support schemes in the new Member States — Complementary national direct payments — Conditions for grant — Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 — Inapplicable)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/6

         Order of the Court of 10 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts) — Ilgvars Brunovskis v Lauku atbalsta dienests
   (Case C-650/11) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Implementation of support schemes in the new Member States - Complementary national direct payments - Conditions for grant - Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 - Inapplicable)
   2013/C 108/11
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ilgvars Brunovskis

      Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 125(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and Article 102(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 1) — Suckler cow premium — National rules providing for the grant of the premium by full calendar year only for suckler cows and heffers registered as eligible for the premium by 1 July at the latest in the relevant calendar year — Whether or not all suckler cows taken into consideration in the calendar year concerned

      Operative part of the order

   European Union law and, in particular, Article 143(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, governing certain complementary national direct payments linked to the presence of suckler cows in a herd and making the grant of those payments conditional on a declaration made before 1 July of the year concerned, even though cows which become suckler cows after that date cannot be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-207/04: Action brought on 4 June 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/23

         Action brought on 4 June 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-207/04)
   (2004/C 201/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 June 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's letter No E2/LP D(2004) 712 of 25 March 2004, received on 26 March 2004, by which the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy, communicated to it the decision that amounts in respect of payments of certain advance payments (advance payments in the context of aid schemes for any Objective 1 and 2 programme) must be clearly identified in future payment declarations, in accordance with the provisions of the abovementioned letter from Commissioner Barnier, together with all underlying and connected measures;

               —

               in the alternative, and so far as may be necessary, annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds;

               —

               in any event, annul all underlying and connected measures;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Italian Republic has challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities the Commission's letter No E2/LP D(2004) 712 of 25 March 2004 concerning the payment of advance payments in the context of aid schemes (MOP Research, Technological Development and Advanced Training), and – so far as may be necessary – Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 (1), both concerning the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds.
   In support of its claims in respect of the letter of 25 March 2004, the applicant alleges:

               —

               infringement of essential procedural requirements owing to a complete failure to state reasons and owing to the adoption of the contested measure without any proper legal basis and without complying with the defendant's internal procedural rules;

               —

               infringement of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 (2) by failing to comply with the accounting methods set out therein;

               —

               infringement of Article 32 of the basic regulation (3) and of Commission Regulation No 448/04, which make the payment of advance payments conditional simply upon proof that the ‘final beneficiary’ State has transferred the sums in question to the end recipients of the funds;

               —

               infringement of Regulation No 448/04 owing to breaches of the principles of equality and legal certainty, and contradictory reasoning in the contested letter.

         In respect of Regulation No 448/04, the applicant alleges infringement:

               —

               of the rules governing the eligibility of expenditure laid down by the basic regulation;

               —

               of the rules governing financial control (which do not impose the obligations alleged by the Commission);

               —

               of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the Commission requests evidence in addition to what is provided for and is necessary;

               —

               of the principle of non-retroactivity, given that Regulation No 448/04 contains provisions with retroactive effect for 44 months prior to its adoption, which is clearly unacceptable in the light of the general principles governing legislative enactment.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and withdrawing Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003 (OJ 2004 L 72, p. 66).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).

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


title: Case T-433/16: Action brought on 3 August 2016 — Pometon v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/17

         Action brought on 3 August 2016 — Pometon v Commission
   (Case T-433/16)
   (2016/C 371/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pometon SpA (Martellago, Italy) (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on Pometon;

               —

               order the defendant to repay any sums paid by the applicant in complying with the contested decision during the proceedings and to reimburse any other costs borne by the applicant in complying with that decision;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal fees and any other costs and charges connected with the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (‘the contested decision’).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of a fair trial, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence, as the Commission ascribed specific conduct to Pometon in the context of Decision C(2014) 2074 final of 2 April 2014 (‘the settlement decision’), adopted in respect of Ervin Industries Inc. and Ervin Amasteel, Winoa SA and WHA Holding SAS, Metalltechnik Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG and Eisenwerk Wurth GmbH (‘the other parties’), and thus took the contested decision without having had the opportunity impartially to assess, free from any constraints, Pometon’s position or the arguments put forward by that company in its defence.

                           —

                           In the settlement decision — and thus before Pometon had been given the opportunity to defend itself — the Commission expressly ascribed to the applicant the same conduct imputed to the other parties, to which a specific infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement was then attributed, in that same settlement decision, precisely because of that conduct. This inevitably and irremediably undermined the Commission’s ability to make a truly impartial decision regarding the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons, and infringement of the rights of the defence and the burden of proof, as the Commission ascribed to the applicant, without evidence, participation in an alleged cartel in which it did not, in fact, participate.

                           —

                           In support of its arguments, the Commission adduced evidence that was imprecise, contradictory, unclear and not sufficient to establish Pometon’s participation in the alleged cartel.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, errors of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation, and manifest illogicality, as the Commission found that the conduct attributed to Pometon had as its object a restriction of competition.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, failure to state reasons and to conduct a proper investigation, failure to have due regard for the burden of proof as regards the duration of the applicant’s presumed participation in the alleged cartel and, as a result, infringement of Articles 23(2), 25(1) and 25(5) of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as the Commission imposed a financial penalty on the applicant even though it was time-barred.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the date on which its alleged participation in the presumed infringement ascribed to it in the contested decision came to an end cannot be the date identified by the Commission but, at the outside, a much earlier date, so that the Commission’s power to impose fines must be regarded as time-barred.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a total failure to state reasons and infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in fixing the amount of the fine when adjustments are made to the basic amount pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

                           —

                           The Commission used Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines in a way that was clearly discriminatory, applying, in Pometon’s case, a rate of abatement of the fine that was distinctly lower than the rate applied to the other parties.

      (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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 February 1999 in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98: Antonio Giannini v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Notice of vacancy - Appointment - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Misuse of powers)

text:
5.6.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 160/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 25 March 1999                                                        of 25 February 1999
in Case T-37/97: Forges de Clabecq SA v. Commission of                     in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98: Antonio Giannini
                  the European Communities (1)                                   v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC — State aid — Action for annulment — Plea of                        (Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Com-
                illegality — Fifth Steel Aid Code)                        pliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance —
                                                                                Misuse of powers)
                          (1999/C 160/36)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/37)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In case T-37/97: Forges de Clabecq SA, established at Clabecq
(Belgium), in the person of Alain Zenner, Dominique Jossart,              In Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98: Antonio Giannini, an
Gérard Leplat and Gilbert Demez, receivers, represented in the            official of the Commission of the European Communities,
present proceedings by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, of the                  residing in Brussels, represented by Marc Dallemagne and
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            Carlo Locchi, of the Brussels Bar, 85, rue du Prince royal,
Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim,                     Brussels, v. Commission of the European Communities
supported by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application,
Devadder, General Adviser in the Legal Service of the Ministry            first, for annulment of the decisions taken by the Commission
of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Jean-Marie de            in compliance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance
Backer, Georges Vandersanden, Olivier Ralet and Laure Levi,               of 19 March 1997 in Case T-21/96 Giannini v. Commission
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            [1997] ECR-SC II-211 and, second, for compensation for the
at the Belgian Embassy, 4, rue des Girondins, Walloon Region,             material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant
represented by Jean-Marie de Backer, Georges Vandersanden                 on account of those decisions — the Court of First Instance
and Olivier Ralet, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,            dent, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges: J. Palacio González,
30, rue de Cessange, and Société wallonne pour la sidérurgie              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
SA (SWS), established in Liège (Belgium), represented by                  25 February 1999, in which it:
Jean-Marie de Backer, Georges Vandersanden and Olivier Ralet,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange,             1. annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 April 1997 cancelling
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Gérard                       vacancy notice COM/151/94, issued with a view to filling the
Rozet) — application for annulment of the Commission                           post of ‘Head of Unit responsible for the negotiation and
Decision of 18 December 1996 declaring certain financial                       management of textile agreements; footwear’, and vacancy notice
assistance granted to the applicant to be incompatible with the                COM/062/97, issued with a view to filling the post of ‘Head of
common market — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                            Unit responsible for the negotiation and management of textile
Chamber, extended composition), composed of: R. M. Moura                       agreements; footwear and other industries’,
Ramos, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh
and P. Mengozzi, Judges: J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in              2. annuls the Commission’s decision of 30 May 1997 appointing
which it:                                                                      Mr X to the post of ‘Head of Unit responsible for the negotiation
                                                                               and management of textile agreements; footwear and other
                                                                               industries’,
1. dismisses the action,
                                                                          3. dismisses the remainder of the actions,
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of
     the defendant,
                                                                          4. orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
3. orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997 and OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-538/03 (1)

   (2004/C 228/78)
   By order of 24 June 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-538/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.