title: Case C-383/08: Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/16

         Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-383/08)
   (2008/C 301/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by adopting the provisions of the ministerial order of 26 August 2005, as last amended by the order of 17 December 2007, which makes it compulsory to indicate the country of origin of the poultrymeat listed in Article 3(1) of that order, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1)(8) and Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, in conjunction, until 30 June 2008, with Article 5(3)(e) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 (2) on certain marketing standards for poultry and, from 1 July 2008, with Article 5(4)(e) and Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 (3).

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that the obligation to indicate the origin of poultrymeat from other Member States laid down by the order of 26 August 2005, as last amended by the order of 17 December 2007, constitutes a breach of Article 3(1)(8) and of Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/13, in conjunction, until 30 June 2008, with Article 5(3)(e) and Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1906/90 and, from 1 July 2008, with Article 5(4)(e) and Article 5(5) of Regulation No 543/2008. According to the Italian Government, that obligation was introduced as a measure intended to ensure the traceability of meat following the confirmation of outbreaks of bird flu in third countries.
   The Commission considers that the obligation in question is contrary to Article 3(1)(8) of Directive 2000/13. It is clear from that article that, for foodstuffs in general, particulars of the place of origin or provenance must appear on the labelling only where, in the absence of such an indication the consumer might be misled as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff. The Community legislature does not, therefore, consider that the indication of origin is a necessary piece of information for consumers in general or in absolute terms, but only where failure to give such an indication might mislead them.
   It is for the Italian Government to establish that the obligation to indicate the origin of poultry from other Member States which is laid down by the order in question really is important for poultrymeat and that failure to give such an indication entails a risk of error on the part of the consumer. In fact, the Commission submits, the Italian Government has not adduced any evidence capable of proving that the Italian consumer would be misled as regards the origin or the provenance of poultrymeat in the absence of any indication of origin.
   The circumstances surrounding the bird flu crisis do not explain why the failure to indicate origin might mislead the consumer and lead him to believe that poultrymeat has a particular origin. The mere fact that the average consumer attaches importance to the origin of the product does not mean that, in the absence of indications of origin, he will be misled as to the real origin of the product. That would imply that a consumer automatically attributes a specific origin to poultrymeat, which remains to be proven by the Italian Government. It should also be observed that matters of animal health cannot be assessed by the consumer who does not have the necessary knowledge to assess the risk on the basis of an indication of origin.
   Moreover, the above provisions of the order are not justified by the public health considerations within the meaning of Article 18(2) of that directive which are relied on by the Italian Government to justify the additional labelling requirement. In order to combat bird flu, the Community has adopted a wide range of veterinary measures intended to ensure that only healthy poultrymeat can enter the Community and be marketed there.
   The argument raised by the Italian Government that the abovementioned Community measures do not ensure traceability is irrelevant, according to the Commission, because the Community measures in question are intended precisely to prevent the entry into the Community of meat from third countries in which outbreaks of bird flu have been discovered. Thus, those measures take effect at a stage before that of marketing, when the Italian measure takes effect, precisely because their objective is to prevent meat from third countries in which there has been an outbreak of bird flu from being imported into the Community. Moreover, the Community has also adopted measures which ensure the isolation of any outbreaks of bird flu which may be confirmed within Community territory so as to prevent any risk of contamination. Within the European Community a series of veterinary measures were then adopted in order to prevent the spread of the virus from wild birds to poultry in the regions in which infected wild birds have been identified and to stem any epidemics in poultry.
   The Italian Government then cites Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (4) which set up a system of traceability for beef which introduces an obligation to indicate origin on labelling, to demonstrate the legitimacy of the obligation introduced by the order in question.
   The Commission, however, submits that that measure, unlike the order in question, is a Community measure and not a national, and therefore unilateral, measure likely to constitute an obstacle to trade. Moreover, the effectiveness of the system introduced by Regulation No 1760/2000 is not solely based on a system of merely indicating the origin of the product, like the Italian order on poultrymeat, but on the combination of a series of elements including a system of identification and registration of animals.
   As regards the argument of the Italian Government attempting to justify the measure on the basis of the precautionary principle, in that the Commission has not established that there is not scientific uncertainty regarding the ways in which the virus is transmitted to man, the Commission observes, in accordance with the case-law of the Community courts, that the scientific data relied on by the Italian Government in the reply to the reasoned opinion do not establish that there is genuine scientific uncertainty regarding the ways in which the virus is transmitted to man. According to the case-law of the Community courts, it is for the Italian authorities to prove the scientific uncertainty which justifies the adoption of national measure in pursuance of the precautionary principle and not for the Commission to prove the absence of scientific uncertainty as the Italian Government appears to suggest in its reply to the reasoned opinion.
   Even if it is accepted that, as regards the specific case of the possible transmission of the virus from infected poultry to domestic animals in general and cats in particular, the Italian Government has demonstrated the existence of genuine scientific uncertainty regarding the guidance in the documents of the WHO and the Food Authority cited by it in the reply to the reasoned opinion, the Commission none the less considers that application of the precautionary principle adopted to justify the order in question appears excessive and therefore not proportionate to the objective of the protection of animal health, given that a series of Community measures have been adopted which are intended to achieve the same objective.
   Finally, until 30 June 2008, Article 5(3)(e) and Article 5(4) of Regulation 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry and, from 1 July 2008, Article 5(4)(e) and Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 impose an obligation to indicate the origin of poultrymeat only on poultry from third countries. On that point the Italian Government does not put forward any counterarguments.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 1990 L 173, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2008 L 157, p. 46.

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 1997 in Case C-167/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): Maatschap M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 9 - Supply of veterinary services)

text:
5 . 4 . 97          FENI                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/9
A decision rendered in divorce proceedings ordering                    Article 9 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
payment of a lump sum and transfer of ownership in                     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
certain property by one party to his or her former spouse              Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
must be regarded as relating to maintenance and therefore              system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
as falling within the scope of the Convention of                       must be interpreted as meaning that the place where the
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement                  services principally and habitually carried out by a
of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as                       veterinary surgeon should be deemed to be supplied is the
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the                     place where the supplier has established his business or
accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the                   has a fixed establishment from which the services are
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                   supplied or, in the absence of such a place of business or
and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the                        fixed establishment, the place where he has his permanent
accession of the Hellenic Republic, if its purpose is to               address or usually resides.
ensure the former spouse 's maintenance. The fact that in
its decision the court of origin disregarded a marriage                ( l ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
contract is of no account in this regard.
(') OJ No C 208, 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Federal
                                                                       Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-44/97)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/ 16
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 6 March 1997                                An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in Case C-167/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              the European Communities on 4 February 1997 by the
the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): Maatschap M. J. M.
                                                                       Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder
Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur
                                                                       and Bernd Kloke, of the Federal Economics Ministry.
       der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond ( ')
 (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9 — Supply of veterinary               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                services)
                            ( 97IC 108/15 )                            — annul          Commission            Decision   96/70 1 /EC    of
                                                                              20 November 1996 (*) amending Decision 96/311/
                                                                              EC (2 ) on the clearance of the accounts presented by
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                the Member States in respect of the expenditure for
                                                                              1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                              Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF )
                                                                              and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 in so
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               far as the sum of DM 19 591 000 for the 'public
           published in the European Court Reports)                           storage of beef' is imposed on the Federal Republic of
                                                                              Germany by Article 2 thereof, rather than assumed by
                                                                              the EAGGF,
 In Case C-167/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 Appeal ), ' s-Hertogenbosch, for a preliminary ruling in the
 proceedings pending before that court between Maatschap                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J. Scheres c.s. v.
 Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond
 — on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Sixth Council               The Commission objected that, in the buying-in, storage
 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              and sale of intervention beef, the German authorities did
  harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                not carry out suitable and adequate inspections, and that,
  to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                  in particular, no documentary evidence was provided that
  uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977,              all prescribed entry inspections were carried out by
  p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.                officials  of the     Bundesanstalt fur      Landwirtschaftliche
  Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.                  Marktordnung (Federal Office for the Organization of
  Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,                Agricultural Markets). It also complained that inventory
  Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General, L. Hewlett,                      controls were not carried out in accordance with Articles 3
  Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                    and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 618/90 . However, the
  6 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :               Commission was unable sufficiently to demonstrate, either


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2005 in Case T-326/03 Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Public policy nature — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 2 June 2005
   in Case T-326/03 Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Prior administrative complaint - Time-limits - Public policy nature - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 205/39)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-326/03: Hippocrate Vounakis, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, A. Coolen and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for the annulment of the Commission's decision not to promote the applicant to grade A4 under the 2002 promotion procedure — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-562/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/18

         Action brought on 17 August 2017 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA)
   (Case T-562/17)
   (2017/C 338/20)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt Verwaltungs-GmbH (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Albea Services (Gennevilliers, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALBÉA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 210 553

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 in Case R 1870/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1) and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;
               alternatively

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1) and, to remit the case to the Office for Harmonization;
               alternatively

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1)

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-548/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2011 — Bank Melli Iran v Council of the European Union; French Republic; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; European Commission (Appeals — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of the funds of a bank — Failure to notify the decision — Legal basis — Rights of the defence)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2011 — Bank Melli Iran v Council of the European Union; French Republic; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; European Commission
      (Case C-548/09 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of the funds of a bank - Failure to notify the decision - Legal basis - Rights of the defence)
      (2012/C 25/09)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Bank Melli Iran (represented by: L. Defalque, avocate)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, L. Butel and E. Ranaivoson, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway, acting as Agent, and D. Beard, Barrister); European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 14 October 2009 in Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of paragraph 4 of Table B in the annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29) in so far as it relates to Bank Melli Iran and its branches — No individual notification of that decision — Breach of essential procedural requirements — No legal basis for the decision to freeze the appellant’s funds — Failure to respect the rights of the defence and the principle of effective judicial protection — Infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the right to property

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Bank Melli Iran to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-179/05: Action brought on 21 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/8

         Action brought on 21 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-179/05)
   (2005/C 155/16)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Nolin, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to provide the Commission with the information required under Article 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93 (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               With regard to the information required under Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2847/93, the French authorities have still not provided this for 1999 or 2000. Moreover, for the subsequent years, that information has been provided late.

               —

               With regard to the information required under Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93, the French authorities have not provided this for 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002. Nor has that information has been provided for subsequent years.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1).


title: Case C-204/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-385/07: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v European Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/12

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-385/07: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v European Commission
   (Case C-204/11 P)
   2011/C 232/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (represented by: A. Barav, and D. Reymond, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the judgment of the General Court delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-385/07 as regards admissibility;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-385/07 as regards the substance, in so far as it approves the inclusion of the ‘non-prime’ matches of the FIFA World Cup™ in the Belgian list of events ‘of major importance for society’ within the meaning of the Directive;

               —

               give final judgment pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay FIFA's costs arising from the proceedings at first instance and from the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   1.   Error of law, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, infringement of Article 3a (2) of Directive 89/552/EEC
       (1)
      as amended by Directive 97/36/EC
       (2)
      and of EU law, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU (exceeding the bounds of judicial review, contradictory reasoning, introducing reasons not given in the contested decision as regards the categorisation of the FIFA World Cup™ and drawing wrong legal conclusions therefrom, reversing the burden of proof)
   The appellant contends that the General Court infringed EU law in giving reasons not featured in the Commission decision (3) for its finding that the Commission correctly characterised the FIFA World Cup™ as ‘by nature, a single event’ for the purposes of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, in giving contradictory and inconsistent reasons, in holding that no specific grounds should be supplied by Member States for including the entire FIFA World Cup™ in their lists of major events, and in reversing the burden of proof.
   2.   Error of law, infringement of Article 3a (1) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (mischaracterisation of the FIFA World Cup™, overstepping the limits of judicial review, reliance on considerations not contained in the contested decision, erroneous assessment of facts relating to ‘non-prime’ matches and wrong legal conclusions drawn therefrom, finding the reasons given in the contested decision sufficient, failure to address arguments raised) The appellant argues that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found and gave sufficient reasons for its finding that the entire FIFA World Cup™ is an event of major importance for Belgian society within the meaning of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC. In particular, the General Court made an error of law and drew wrong legal conclusions from the facts in endorsing the Commission's unsupported findings that the entire FIFA World Cup™ has ‘a special general resonance in Belgium’, that it has been traditionally broadcast on free-to-air television and that it commanded large audiences.
   3.   Error of law, infringement of the TFEU, violation of Article 3a (l) and (2) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (disregarding the scope of judicial review, holding that the Commission correctly found and gave sufficient reasons for its finding that the notified Belgian measures are compatible with EU law and that the restrictions entailed by them are proportionate, misconstruction of the scope of the right to information and of the public interest in wide access to televised events of major importance for society)

      This plea is divided into two branches:

   First branch: The appellant alleges that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found that the notified Belgian measures were compatible with EU law, although the restrictions on the right of establishment were not addressed in the contested decision. The General Court further infringed EU law by holding that the restrictions on the right of establishment were proportionate and in holding that the Commission lawfully found, and that it gave sufficient reasons for its finding, that the restrictions on the freedom to provide services were proportionate.
   Second branch: The appellant contends that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found that the notified Belgian measures were compatible with EU law, although the restrictions on FIFA's property rights were not addressed in the contested decision. The General Court further infringed EU law by holding that the restrictions on FIFA's right to property were proportionate.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
   OJ L 298, p. 23

      (2)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
   OJ L 202, p. 60

      (3)  Commission decision (2007/479/EC) of 25 June 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by Belgium pursuant to Article 3a (l) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
   OJ L 180, p. 24.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-349/02 (1)

   (2004/C 228/73)
   By order of 3 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-349/02: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Italy.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Removal from the register of Case C-273/02 (1)

   (2005/C 143/46)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 16 December 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-273/02: European Parliament v Council of the European Union, supported by Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case T-519/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piessevaux v Council (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights to the European Union pension scheme — Proposal concerning the crediting of additional pensionable years — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — New general implementing provisions — Equal treatment — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piessevaux v Council
   (Case T-519/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights to the European Union pension scheme - Proposal concerning the crediting of additional pensionable years - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - New general implementing provisions - Equal treatment - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations))
   (2017/C 231/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vincent Piessevaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, then by J.-N. Louis, and finally by L. Ponteville, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 7 October 2013 definitively fixing, for the purposes of the European Union pension scheme, the pension rights acquired by the applicant following the transfer of the rights which he had acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, from national pension bodies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Vincent Piessevaux to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-91/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case T-297/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Cristóbal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa against Council of the European Union

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/27

         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Cristóbal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa against Council of the European Union
   (Case T-297/04)
   (2004/C 251/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by Cristóbal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa, residing in Jaen (Spain), represented by José Francisco Vázquez Medina, of the Jaen Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul ipso jure Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/04

               —

               reserve its decision on costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those put forward in Case T-295/04.


title: Case T-98/06: Action brought on  28 March 2006  — Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/44

         Action brought on 28 March 2006 — Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole v Commission
   (Case T-98/06)
   (2006/C 131/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir and P.-A. Jeanneney, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision given by the Commission on 21 December 2005 in Case N 531/2005 France — Measures relating to the creation and operation of Banque Postale;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the proceeding.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 25 January 2005 the French authorities informed the Commission of their decision to transfer the banking and insurance activities of La Poste to a subsidiary (Banque Postale), initially wholly owned by La Poste. On 21 July 2001, the applicant in the present action submitted a formal complaint to the Commission under Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (1), alleging that the State aid granted to Banque Postale was incompatible with the common market and requesting that the Commission initiate formal investigation proceedings.
   In a decision of 21 December 2005, the Commission stated that the transferring of financial activities to a subsidiary does not confer an economic advantage on Banque Postale and that the measures relating to the creation and operation of this subsidiary do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. That is the decision against which the present action is brought.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first alleging a breach of formal legality, i.e. breach of Regulation No 659/1999 by the Commission in taking a decision to refer certain measures back for further consideration and breach by the Commission of Article 88(2) EC in refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
   In its second plea the applicant asserts that by holding that the measures relating to the creation and operation of Banque Postale did not constitute State aid, the Commission made several errors of assessment regarding, inter alia, the economic advantages alleged in the complaint and that therefore it had misinterpreted Articles 87 and 88 EC.
   In its third plea the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision is vitiated by formal defects owing to the Commission's failure to give reasons for its refusal to deal with the fundamental objections raised by the applicant in its complaint and also contradictory reasoning and lack of reasoning regarding certain specific points dealt with in the decision.
   In its fourth plea the applicant alleges that the Commission breached Articles 43, 82 and 86 EC by failing to take account in its decision of the interference with freedom of establishment and free competition posed by the measures relating to the purpose of the State aid as inferred from Livret A.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1


title: Case T-495/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sedes Holding v EUIPO (gratis)

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/24

         Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sedes Holding v EUIPO (gratis)
   (Case T-495/17)
   (2017/C 318/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Sedes Holding AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: K. Ongena and C. Du Jardin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘gratis’ — Application for EU trade mark No 15 950 637

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 in Case R 507/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, join the case dealt with in the present application with the action against the decision of EUIPO in Case R 506/2017-2 for the purposes of the oral procedure in view of the connection between them;

               —

               declare the action set out in the application to be admissible and well founded, and accordingly:

                           —

                           primarily, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 637 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for all goods claimed under that registration;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 637 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for ‘perfumery, cosmetic products, fragrances and deodorants for personal use’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               infringement of the general principles of EU law.


title: Case C-581/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Muhamad Mugraby against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09: Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/37

      Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Muhamad Mugraby against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09: Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission
      (Case C-581/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: S. Delhaye, Advocate)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  1.

                  find that the Commission has failed to act on:

                              i)

                              the Applicant's request that the commission submit a recommendation to the Council regarding the suspension of Community assistance for Lebanon as set forth in article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 (1), such measures being both required and available under said Regulation;

                              ii)

                              the Applicant's request that the Commission, as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, suspend the implementation of these programs pending the resolution of Lebanon's continuing violation of fundamental rights, more specifically those of Applicant;

                  2.

                  find that the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, as failed to act on the Applicant's request to invite the Commission to recommend that the Council take specific and effective measures regarding Union assistance for Lebanon under the Association Agreement (2) between Lebanon and the Community, in order to fulfil the parties' obligations under the Agreement;

                  3.

                  Find that the EU, the Commission, in its function as guardian of the Treaties and as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, and the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, have incurred non-contractual liability for damages suffered by Applicant as a result of their consistent failure from December 2002 onwards to effectively utilize the available resources and instruments towards effective enforcement of the human rights clause in the Association Agreement;

                  4.

                  Order the Commission, in part as reparation in kind, to propose to the Council the suspension of the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement, pending the resolution of Lebanon's failures to comply with article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to Applicant;

                  5.

                  Order the Commission to limit the performance of current assistance programs (which are carried out and/or supervised by the Commission) to those programs that are aimed specifically at promoting fundamental rights and which do not constitute financial aid to the Lebanese authorities, pending the resolution of Lebanon's failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to Applicant;

                  6.

                  Order the Council to invite the Commission to make a recommendation as outlined under (4) above, and to act through the institutions of the Association Agreement to the same end;

                  7.

                  Order the EU, Council and Commission, Defendants in the First Instance, to compensate Applicant's material and moral damages, in an amount to be fixed ex aequo et bono at not less than EUR 5 000 000, and to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

                  The General Court erred in law:

                              —

                              In dismissing the application on the grounds of inadmissibility where no grounds for inadmissibility exist;

                              —

                              In violating the right of the applicant to name all the defendants;

                              —

                              In violating the applicant’s rights of defence by ignoring the arguments put forward by the applicant;

                              —

                              In omitting to rule on all of the requests for relief put forward by the applicant;

                              —

                              In ignoring EU law and the EU’s obligations under international law, and in basing the order on regulations issued by one of the EU institutions.

                  The applicant also submits that the General Court misinterpreted the EU-Lebanon Association Agreementand that it lacked a legal basis for its interpretation of ‘broad discretion’ and for its finding that it lacked the power to issue orders to the Council of the EU and to the European Commission.

                  As a consequence of the above, the applicant claims that the General Court has denied him justice.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
      OJ L 310, p. 1

         (2)  Interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, on the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, on the other part (OJ 2002 L 262, p.2)


title: Case T-501/10: Action brought on 22 October 2010 — TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/53

         Action brought on 22 October 2010 — TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission
   (Case T-501/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/104
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Telecom Italia Media Broadcasting Srl (TI Media Broadcasting) (Rome, Italy) and Telecom Italia Media SpA (TI Media) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Caravati di Toritto, L. Sabelli, F. Pace and A. d'Urbano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the contested decision in unlawful and annul the decision in so far as it authorised SKY to participate in the digital dividend tendering procedure;

               —

               In the alternative, order the Commission to: (i) state the Lot for which SKY is permitted to submit a tender in the procedure; (ii) extend the five-year ban on the use of frequencies for Pay TV purposes also to those acquired under agreements with existing operators or new entrants;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant companies in the present proceedings seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4976 of 20 July 2010 (the Decision) relating to the amendment of Clause 9.1 of the Commitments annexed to the Decision of 2 April 2003 (Case COMP/M.2876) by which the Commission declared that the concentration brought about by the creation of ‘SKY Italia’ (‘SKY’) was compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
   It should be noted in that connection that the clause in question required SKY to refrain from acquiring analogue and digital frequencies and no to engage in any activities on the digital terrestrial platform either as a network operator or as a content provider before 31 December 2011. By the contested decision, the Commission granted SKY’s request, allowing it to participate in the tendering procedure for the allocation of digital dividend by submitting a bid for the award of only one multiplex intended to distribute content in unencoded form for a period of five years from the adoption of the decision itself.
   In support of their claims, the applicants rely on the following grounds: infringement of Articles 2, 6, and 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, (1) paragraph 74 of the Commission notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, (2) Clause No 14.1 of the Commitments annexed to the Decision of 2 April 2003 (Case COMP/M.2876) and Article 102 TFEU.
   The contested decision is vitiated by misuse of power and failure to state reasons in so far as it grants a request the content of which goes beyond the objective scope of the Clause 9.1 of the Commitments annexed the 2003 Decision (Case COMP/M.2876), thereby permitting SKY to participate in a public tendering procedure for the allocation of digital dividend.
   The applicants also maintain that, by infringing essential procedural requirements and distorting the facts, the Commission made an incorrect assessment of the exceptional circumstances capable of justifying the amendment of the commitments originally imposed on SKY. In particular, by putting forward arguments concerning anomalous features which characterise the competitive procedure in question, the Commission equated TI Media with the incumbents RAI and Mediaset, even though no notification of a dominant position had ever been made in respect of TI Media. In order to substantiate such obiter dictum concerning the purported ‘strong position’ of TI Media on the market, the Commission relied on a misinterpretation of Decision 544/07/CONS, totally failing to take account of the results of the market test.
   Lastly, the applicants submit that the Decision is unlawful on grounds of failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons, in so far as, with regard to the definition of the criteria for the award of the contract, it was based on an incorrect and misleading interpretation of the content of Decisions 181/09/CONS and 427/09/CONS. Contrary to the claims made by the Commission, those decisions defined the award criteria with reference to frequency Lots (A, B and, optionally, C) without distinguishing national operators per category and, essentially, without defining TI Media as a vertically integrated operator.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2008 C 267, p. 1.


C 112/48                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               assessor which were favorable to the applicant were
                                                                              removed.
The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his
application.
—     Breach of the obligation as to circumspection, of the
      principles of proper administraion and sound manage-
      ment and of the principles of independence and impar-                     Removal from the register of Case T-100/99 (1)
      tiality. It is claimed that the contested staff report was
      drawn up by a head of unit whose appointment was                                          (2003/C 112/89)
      challenged by the applicant before the Court of First
      Instance. The applicant submits that in those circum-                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
      stances that assessor should have disqualified himself.
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons, of rights of
      defence and of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and            By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Second
      manifest error of assessment. In this plea the applicant          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      claims that the contested report was drawn up on the
      basis of statements by unidentified persons who did not           T-100/99: Campina Melkunie B.V. v Commission of the
      sign it, that the assessors did not consult the persons           European Communities.
      proposed by the applicant and that the second assessor
      gave no explanation as to why assessments by the first            (1 ) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case C-539/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 26 November 2012 — ZJR Lock v British Gas Trading Limited & Others

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 26 November 2012 — ZJR Lock v British Gas Trading Limited & Others
   (Case C-539/12)
   2013/C 46/25
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Employment Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ZJR Lock

      Defendants: British Gas Trading Limited & Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where

                           (i)

                           a worker’s annual pay comprises of basic pay and commission payments made under a contractual right to commission

                           (ii)

                           the commission is paid by reference to sales made and contracts entered into by the employer in consequence of the worker’s work

                           (iii)

                           commission is paid in arrears and the amount of commission received in a given reference period fluctuates according to the value of sales achieved and contracts entered into and the time of such sales

                           (iv)

                           during periods of annual leave, the worker does not undertake any work that would entitle him to those commission payments and accordingly does not generate commission in respect of such periods

                           (v)

                           during the pay period which includes a period of annual leave, the worker is entitled to basic pay and will continue to receive commission payments based on commission earned earlier; and

                           (vi)

                           his average commission earnings over the course of the year will be lower than they would be if the worker had not taken leave, because, during the leave period, he will not have undertaken any work that would entitle him to commission payments

                     does Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC (1), as amended by Directive 2003/88/EC (2), require that Member States take measures to ensure that a worker is paid in respect of periods of annual leave by reference to the commission payments he would have earned during that period, had he not taken leave, as well as his basic pay?

               2.

               What are the principles which inform the answer to question 1.?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 is ‘Yes’, what principles (if any) are required to be adopted by member states in calculating the sum that is payable to the worker by reference to the commission that the worker would or might have earned if he had not taken annual leave?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time
   OJ L 307, p. 18

      (2)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
   OJ L 299, p. 9


title: Case C-616/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Nello Grassi and Others

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Nello Grassi and Others
   (Case C-616/16)
   (2017/C 063/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Gianni Pantuso, Angelo Tralongo, Maria Michela D’Alessandro

      Respondents and cross-appellants: Nello Grassi, Carmela Amato, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 82/76, (1) which amended Directives 75/362 (2) and 75/363, (3) to be interpreted as including within its scope full-time and part-time courses for trainee medical specialists which had already begun by 31 December 1982 and continued after that date, that being the date by which the Member States were to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with the directive, in accordance with Article 16 thereof?
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,

               2.

               Is the annex which was appended to the ‘coordination’ directive (Directive 75/363) by Article 13 of Directive 82/76, which amended Directives 75/362 and 75/363, to be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to specialist training courses which had already begun by 31 December 1982, the obligation to provide trainee specialists with adequate remuneration is dependent on fulfilment of the obligation to reorganise courses or on compliance with the requirements of the abovementioned directives?

               3.

               With respect to specialist doctors who pursued specialist training courses which began before 1 January 1983 but had not ended by that date, was there any obligation to pay them adequate remuneration for the entire duration of the course or for the period after 31 December 1982 alone and, if so, to what conditions, if any, was that obligation subject?

      (1)  Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 14).


2.8.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 184/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-345/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/54)                                                        (2003/C 184/58)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 14 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-405/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Coopsette Scrl v ANAS, Impresa             from the register of Case C-345/01: Commission of the
Mambrini Costruzioni srl.                                              European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-466/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/59)
By order of 13 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-432/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):            register of Case C-466/01: Commission of the European
Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Milano (A.L.E.R.), Orion SCRL.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and
                            C-74/01 (1)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/56)                                                        (2003/C 184/60)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and C-74/01 (Refer-          register of Case C-146/02: Commission of the European
ence for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwal-              Communities v Republic of Austria.
tungssenat): Dr Manfred Hückel.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-179/01 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-267/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/57)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/61)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 16 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-179/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. v Comune         from the register of Case C-267/02: Commission of the
di Torino, ED.ART. s.r.l.                                              European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.                                            (1) OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case F-64/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 April 2008 — S v Parliament

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/63

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 April 2008 — S v Parliament
   (Case F-64/07) (1)

   (2008/C 223/122)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 53.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2004 in Case T-154/01: Distilleria F. Palma SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 — Common organisation of the market in wine — Regulation (EEC) No 1780/89 — Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 — Regulation (EC) No 416/96 — Disposal of alcohol obtained by distillation — Regulation (EEC) No 3390/90 — Sale by tender for use as motor fuel — Refusal by the Commission to amend a number of conditions for the tender — Force majeure — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Admissibility)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/15

         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 25 May 2004
   in Case T-154/01: Distilleria F. Palma SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 - Common organisation of the market in wine - Regulation (EEC) No 1780/89 - Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 - Regulation (EC) No 416/96 - Disposal of alcohol obtained by distillation - Regulation (EEC) No 3390/90 - Sale by tender for use as motor fuel - Refusal by the Commission to amend a number of conditions for the tender - Force majeure - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 190/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-154/01: Distilleria F. Palma SpA, in liquidation, established in Naples (Italy), represented by F. Caruso, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro,) - application under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission's allegedly unlawful conduct arising from the letter of 11 November 1996 sent by the Commission to the Italian authorities - the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98: Camar srl and Tico srl v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Application for additional import licences — Adjustment of the tariff quota in case of need — Transitional measures)

text:
12.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 233/27
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              for compensation for, in Case T-79/96, the loss allegedly
                                                                         caused by the Commission’s conduct and, in Cases T-260/97
                                                                         and T-117/98, the loss allegedly suffered following those
                         of 8 June 2000                                  adverse decisions — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                         Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili
                                                                         and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98: Camar                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 2000, in
srl and Tico srl v Commission of the European Communi-                   which it:
         ties and Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                         1.    Declares, in Case T-79/96, that the Commission failed to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations under Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC)
(Common organisation of the markets — Bananas —                                No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation
Application for additional import licences — Adjustment of                     of the market in bananas by failing to take the necessary
  the tariff quota in case of need — Transitional measures)                    measures, within the meaning of that article, vis-à-vis the
                                                                               applicant;
                        (2000/C 233/50)                                  2.    In Case T-260/97, annuls the Commission decision of 17 July
                                                                               1997 rejecting the applicant’s application under Article 30 of
                                                                               Regulation No 404/93;
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                        3.    In Case T-117/98, annuls the Commission decision of
                                                                               23 April 1998 rejecting the applicants’ application under
                                                                               Article 16(3) of Regulation No 404/93;
In Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, Camar srl,
established in Florence (Italy), the applicant in Cases T-79/96,
                                                                         4.    In Cases T-79/96 and T-117/98, dismisses the claim for
T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl, established in Padua
                                                                               compensation as inadmissible;
(Italy), the applicant in Case T-117/98, represented by
W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà, of the Padua Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             5.    In Case T-260/97, orders the Commission to pay compensation
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, the applicant in Case                       for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
T-79/96 being supported by Italian Republic (Agents:                           decision of 17 July 1997 rejecting the applicant’s application
U. Leanza and F. Quadri), against Commission of the European                   under Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93;
Communities (Agents: in Case T-79/96, E. de March, in Case
T-260/97, H. van Vliet and A. Dal Ferro and, in Case                           Directs that the parties give notice to the Court, within a period
T-117/98, F. Ruggeri Laderchi, H. van Vliet and A. Dal Ferro)                  of six months after delivery of this judgment, of the amounts
and Council of the European Union, the defendant in Case                       agreed upon as payable;
T-260/97 (Agents: J.P. Hix and A. Tanca), supported by French
Republic (Agents: in Case T-79/96, C. de Salins and F. Pascal
and, in Case T-260/97, K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak)                       In default of agreement, they shall forward to the Court, within
— application, first, in Case T-79/96, for a declaration that the              the same time-limit, details of the amounts they claim;
Commission illegally failed to take, on the basis of Article 30
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993                6.    In Cases T-79/96 and T-117/98, orders the Commission to
on the common organisation of the market in bananas                            pay the costs;
(OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), measures which would have enabled the
applicant to procure supplies of bananas from non-member                 7.    In Case T-260/97, orders the Commission to pay 90 % of the
countries in the circumstances resulting from the civil war in                 costs;
Somalia, in Case T-262/97, application for the annulment
of the Commission decision of 17 July 1997 rejecting the
applicant’s application under Article 30 of that regulation for          8.    In Case T-260/97, orders the Council to pay 10 % of the costs;
the adoption of provisional measures enabling the annual
quantity attributed to it for the issue of import licences for           9.    Orders the Italian Republic and the French Republic to bear
non-traditional ACP bananas to be calculated by reference to                   their own costs.
the quantities marketed by it during 1988, 1989 and 1990,
and, in Case T-117/98, application for the annulment of
the Commission decision of 23 April 1998 rejecting the                   (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996, C 357 of 22.11.1997 and C 327 of
applicants’ application for review, under Article 16(3) of the               24.10.1998.
same regulation, of the tariff quota for imports of bananas for
the first half of 1998, in order to take account of the
consequences of the floods which occurred in Somalia as from
20 October 1997 and, second, in all three cases, application


title: Case C-339/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Luc Vanderborght (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFUE — Freedom to provide services — Provision of oral and dental care — National legislation prohibiting, in absolute terms, advertising for oral and dental care services — Existence of a cross-border element — Protection of public health — Proportionality — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society service — Advertising via an internet site — Member of a regulated profession — Professional rules — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair trading practices — National provisions relating to health — National provisions governing regulated professions)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Luc Vanderborght
   (Case C-339/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFUE - Freedom to provide services - Provision of oral and dental care - National legislation prohibiting, in absolute terms, advertising for oral and dental care services - Existence of a cross-border element - Protection of public health - Proportionality - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society service - Advertising via an internet site - Member of a regulated profession - Professional rules - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair trading practices - National provisions relating to health - National provisions governing regulated professions))
   (2017/C 213/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Party in the main proceedings

   Luc Vanderborght

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which protects public health and the dignity of the profession of dentist, first, by imposing a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising relating to the provision of oral and dental care services and, secondly, by establishing certain requirements of discretion with regard to signs of dental practices;

               2.

               Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising relating to the provision of oral and dental care services, inasmuch as it prohibits any form of electronic commercial communications, including by means of a website created by a dentist;

               3.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising relating to the provision of oral and dental care services.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-277/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad S.A.

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad S.A.
   (Case C-277/08)
   (2008/C 223/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francisco Vicente Pereda

      Defendant: Madrid Movilidad S.A.
   Question referred
   Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that when the period of leave allocated in the undertaking's annual planning of leave coincides in time with a temporary disability following an accident at work which happened before that period of leave began, the employee affected, once he returns to work, has the right to use his leave on dates different from those originally allocated, irrespective of whether the calendar year to which they relate has ended?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case C-267/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Nutricia NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 — Notion — Nutritional preparations intended to be administered only enterally under medical supervision to persons undergoing medical treatment — Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 — Notion — Nutritional liquids intended to be administered enterally and not to be drunk)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Nutricia NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-267/13) (1)

   ((Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 - Notion - Nutritional preparations intended to be administered only enterally under medical supervision to persons undergoing medical treatment - Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 - Notion - Nutritional liquids intended to be administered enterally and not to be drunk))
   2014/C 194/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Nutricia NV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 — Notion — Food preparations intended exclusively to be administered enterally, under medical supervision, to persons undergoing medical treatment as a result of a disease or ailment — Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 — Notion — Liquid foodstuffs for enteral administration, not intended to be drunk

      Operative part of the judgment

   Tariff heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘medicaments’ within the meaning of that heading includes food preparations intended exclusively to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube) under medical supervision to persons who are receiving medical care, provided that that product is administered, as part of the control of the disease or ailment affecting them, in order to prevent or control their malnutrition.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-435/11: Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2012 — Universal Display Corp. v OHIM (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Application for Community word mark UniversalPHOLED — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2012 — Universal Display Corp. v OHIM
   (Case T-435/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Application for Community word mark UniversalPHOLED - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 174/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Display Corp. (Ewing, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and C. Lehr, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2011 (Case R 215/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign UniversalPHOLED as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Universal Display Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-36/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen, on the application of: Approved Prescription Services Ltd, v Licensing Authority (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Procedures for essentially similar products)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-36/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen, on the application of: Approved Prescription Services Ltd, v Licensing Authority
       (1)

   (Medicinal products - Marketing authorisation - Procedures for essentially similar products)
   (2005/C 45/09)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-36/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom), made by order of 23 December 2002, received at the Court on 3 February 2003, in the proceedings between The Queen, on the application of: Approved Prescription Services Ltd, and Licensing Authority, acting by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, interested party: Eli Lilly & Co. Ltd, – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it has ruled:
   An application for marketing authorisation for a Product C may be made under Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use where the application seeks to demonstrate that Product C is essentially similar to a Product B, in circumstances where:

               —

               Product B is a new pharmaceutical form of Product A, and

               —

               Product A, but not Product B, has been authorised for marketing in the Community for at least the six or ten year period stipulated therein.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Minh-Hong Pham against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-93/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 166/25
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Patrick Salez against                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
         the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-92/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 166/51 )
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                   (Language of the case: French)                       Case T-16/97 0 ).
An action against the Commission of the European                        (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Patrick Salez, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Brigitte Nau against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       ( Case T-94/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/53
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                      (Language of the case: French)
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      by Brigitte Nau, residing at Strombeek-Bever ( Belgium),
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of Article 31
C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                         (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Minh-Hong Pham
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                           ( Case T-93/97)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 166/52 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                        Case T-16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Minh-Hong Pham, residing in Brussels ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Marie Louise Brichard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95/97)
— annul the Commission's decision of 27 June 1996                                                   ( 97/C 166/54 )
     rejecting      the   applicant's    request  that   it   give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31                             (Language of the case: French)
      ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     by Marie Louise Brichard, residing in Brussels, represented


title: Case C-486/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV France and Orange v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/22

         Appeal brought on 14 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV France and Orange v Commission
   (Case C-486/15 P)
   (2015/C 381/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Stromsky, D. Grespan, and T. Maxian Rusche, members of the Legal Service)

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, Orange, formerly France Télécom, Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-425/04 French Republic v Commission and T-444/04 France Télécom v Commission in so far as it:

                           —

                           annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (1);

                           —

                           ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the French Republic and by Orange in Cases T-425/04 and T-444/04;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the case, dismissing the action brought by the applicants and ordering the applicants to pay the costs in relation to all the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.
   In the first place, it submits that the statement of reasons for the judgment of the General Court is inadequate and contradictory. The General Court ignored the principles established by the judgment on appeal (2) and did not address in sufficient detail the arguments put forward by the Commission after the cases were referred back to the General Court.
   In the second place, the Commission alleges that the General Court committed numerous infringements of Article 107(1) TFEU. Those infringements led the General Court to exclude the statements made by the government between July and December 2002 and the ‘restoring the confidence of the financial markets’ aspect of the announcement of 4 December 2002 from the scope of the analysis of the private investor criterion. First, by attempting to apply the prudent private investor test at a specific moment in time, the General Court disregarded the solution adopted by the Court of Justice, according to which it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were adopted and to take into account all the relevant information. According to the Commission, the General Court seems to have overlooked the fact that an aid measure may derive from several interlinked interventions which are inseparable from one another. Secondly, the General Court committed several errors of law as regards the link between the concept of advantage and the application of the prudent private investor criterion. In particular, the Commission alleges that the General Court limited the prudent private investor test to a limited part of the period during which the effects of the advantage manifested themselves. Thirdly, the Commission submits that the General Court excluded background factors from the scope of its examination. Fourthly, the General Court unfairly limited the joint examination of several advantages to advantages of a similar nature. Fifthly, the General Court did not apply the criterion established by the Court of Justice for determining whether State measures are indissolubly linked and must be examined together. Sixthly, the Commission contests the General Court’s identification of events constituting ‘breaks’ in the succession of State measures during the months of September to December 2002. According to the Commission, such ‘breaks’ cannot justify the separate examination of measures prior and subsequent to that date. Lastly, the Commission contests the General Court’s reasoning in relation to the reputational risk.
   In the third place, the Commission submits that the General Court exceeded the limits of its review of the legality of administrative acts.
   Finally, the Commission maintains that the General Court erroneously interpreted and even distorted the Commission’s decision.

      (1)  OJ 2006, L 257, p. 11.

      (2)  Judgment in Bouygues and Others v Commission and Others, C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, EU:C:2013:175.