title: Cases T-329/12 and T-74/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014  — Al-Tabbaa v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union — Rights of defence — Right to an effective judicial remedy — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
   (Cases T-329/12 and T-74/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union - Rights of defence - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   2014/C 282/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council acts containing restrictive measures concerning the applicant, namely, initially, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Mazen Al-Tabbaa.

               2)

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012, in so far as they concern Mr Al-Tabbaa.

               3)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 and Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739, in so far as they concern Mr Al-Tabbaa.

               4)

               Annuls Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Al-Tabbaa.

               5)

               Orders the effects of Decision 2013/255 to be maintained as regards Mr Al-Tabbaa until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 takes effect.

               6)

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-74/13.

               7)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant in Case T-329/12 and three-quarters of the costs incurred by him in Case T-74/13.

               8)

               Orders the applicant to pay one quarter of his costs in Case T-74/13.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-395/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Sala Primera Civil (Spain) lodged on 22 September 2006 — Entidad de Gestión de los Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Al Rima, S.A

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Sala Primera Civil (Spain) lodged on 22 September 2006 — Entidad de Gestión de los Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Al Rima, S.A
   (Case C-395/06)
   (2006/C 294/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo — Sala Primera Civil (Spain)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Entidad de Gestión de los Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA)

      Defendant: Al Rima, S.A
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Does the installation in the rooms of a hotel or similar establishment of television sets to which a terrestrial or satellite television signal is sent by cable constitute an act of communication to the public which is covered by the harmonisation of national laws protecting the rights of phonogram producers and producers of the first fixations of films provided for in Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001?

               2.

               Is it contrary to the protection of the rights of phonogram producers and producers of the first fixations of films pursued by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 to deem the room of a hotel or similar establishment to be a strictly domestic location, so that communication by means of television sets to which is fed a signal previously received by the hotel or similar establishment is not regarded as communication to the public?

               3.

               For the purposes of protecting the rights of phonogram producers and producers of the first fixations of films pursued by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, can communication that is effected through television sets which are installed in rooms and to which a signal previously received by a hotel or similar establishment is fed be regarded as public because successive viewers have access to that communication?

      (1)  On the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-443/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/39

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck
   (Case C-443/13)
   2013/C 344/69
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendants and appellants: Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH

      Applicant and respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1086/2011 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 to be understood as meaning that fresh poultry meat must satisfy the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (2) at all stages of distribution?

               2.

               Are food business operators which are active at the food distribution stage also subject in full to the regime under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005?

               3.

               Must the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 also be observed at all stages of distribution by food business operators which are not involved in production (being involved exclusively at the distribution stage)?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as regards salmonella in fresh poultry meat (OJ 2011 L 281, p. 7).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case T-715/16: Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Pebagua v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/31

      Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Pebagua v Commission
      (Case T-715/16)
      (2016/C 441/36)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) (Isla Mayor, Spain) (represented by: A. J. Uceda Sosa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested implementing regulation;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the inclusion of the species Procambarus clarkii in the list adopted by that regulation;

                  —

                  order the applicant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is brought against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 4).
      In support of its action, the applicant submits that, as regards the species Procambarus clarkii, the requirements laid down in Article 4 of Regulation 1143/2014 were not met and a risk assessment under the terms set out in Article 5(1) of that regulation was not carried out.


title: Case T-841/14: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Spain v Commission (Action for annulment — Own resources of the European Union — Financial liability of the Member States — Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources — Amount of default interest — Letter from the Commission — Act not subject to appeal — Inadmissible)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/39

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-841/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Own resources of the European Union - Financial liability of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Amount of default interest - Letter from the Commission - Act not subject to appeal - Inadmissible))
   (2015/C 381/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly made by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget contained in the letter (BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 3486706 of 21 October 2014, by which the Commission applied Article 11 of amended Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2007 L 130, p. 1) and fixed at EUR 3 1 72  388,46 the amount of default interest to be paid by the Kingdom of Spain, at the latest on the last working day two months following the dispatch of that letter.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case C-303/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Maria Laura Altavista v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Maria Laura Altavista v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-303/11)
   2011/C 252/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Laura Altavista

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC (1), under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules on employment stabilisation for workers in precarious employment (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006), under which it is possible, in derogation from the rule requiring a public selection procedure, to recruit directly, under contracts of unlimited duration, workers who have already been recruited on fixed-term contracts but with the length of service accrued under those fixed-term contracts being set at nought; or does the loss of length of service, as provided for by the national legislature, fall within the ambit of the derogation relating to ‘objective grounds’, given the need to prevent workers in precarious employment from being admitted to the permanent staff to the detriment of workers already on the permanent staff, which would be the position if it were possible for workers in precarious employment to have the length of service accrued taken into account?

               (b)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules under which, without prejudice to the accrual of length of service for the period of the fixed-term contract, the fixed-term contract is to be terminated and a new contract of unlimited duration established, which is different from the previous contract and under which the length of service accrued is not to be maintained (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006)?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-392/13: Action brought on 25 July 2013 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/3

         Action brought on 25 July 2013 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA
   (Case T-392/13)
   2013/C 291/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Leone La Ferla SpA (Melilli, Italy) (represented by: G. Passalacqua, J. Occhipinti and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measures in their entirety or to the extent that the Court may deem just and in the interests of the applicant;

               —

               consequently, order the ECHA to repay the sums wrongly received from the applicant, together with statutory interest and compensation for monetary inflation from the date on which the payments made by the applicant were credited to the ECHA, until repayment in full;

               —

               or, cumulatively or alternatively, order the ECHA to make good the damage sustained by Leone La Ferla Spa, in the amount of the abovementioned sums wrongly received from the applicant, together with statutory interest and compensation for monetary inflation from the date on which the payments made by the applicant were credited to the ECHA, until such damage is made good;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present case contests the decision whereby the ECHA — finding that the applicant had failed to prove that it was a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) — ordered it to pay the registration fees at the rates laid down for large enterprises and to pay the corresponding administrative charge.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               By its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the ECHA unlawfully exceeded its powers, which are limited to ascertaining whether the applicant undertaking is entitled to the reduced fee payable by SMEs, by putting itself in the place of the Commission in adopting the decision concerning that entitlement and by applying in an arbitrary manner, in order to determine whether the applicant had the legal status of an SME, substantive criteria other than those laid down by the Commission in Regulation No 340/2008. (1)

               The power to adopt decisions concerning entitlement to the reduced tariff for SMEs involves an assessment as to whether the criteria of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, on Community finance for SMEs, are applicable to the size of the enterprise registered; that assessment is not a matter for the ECHA Secretariat but for the Commission alone, since neither the REACH Regulation nor the Commission’s implementing regulations have provided an ad hoc definition.
               In addition, as regards ascertaining the legal status of an SME, Commission Regulation (EC) 340/2008 expressly restricts the application of the sub-criteria of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, relating to holdings in other companies, to enterprises not established in the European Union. It follows, conversely, that those criteria may not be applied in evaluating the size of an enterprise established in the European Union in order to check whether the latter is entitled to the reduced fee.

               2.

               By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that, in any event, the ECHA has in this case unlawfully applied the abovementioned sub-criteria by failing to take into account that Leone La Ferla S.p.a. is a family enterprise, since all its shares are owned by the La Ferla brothers. For that reason, no importance should have been attached, even under the sub-criteria in question, to the partnerships and links with other enterprises, given that none of the other enterprises linked to the applicant operates in the same market as it does or in adjacent markets (Article 3(3) of Annex I to Recommendation 361/2003/EC).

               3.

               By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the contested measure was unlawfully signed by the Executive Director of ECHA, since the REACH Regulation does not provide that the Executive Director may adopt decisions relating to the size of the enterprises requesting registration.

               4.

               By its fourth plea in law, the applicant challenges the legality of Decisions ECHA MB/D/29/2010 and MB/D/21/2012/D whereby the Agency set the amount of the ‘administrative charge’, arbitrarily varying its amount between several financial values, whereas in reality the charge will be imposed only at the highest rate. Such decisions are unlawful — as therefore are the provisons implementing them — given that it is for the Commission to establish the exact amount of all the fees and charges provided for under the REACH Regulation (the ECHA may provide only a classification of services ‘other’ than those specific to the REACH system) and that the ‘administrative charge’ will be paid to the ECHA budget. In addition, since such a ‘charge’ constitutes an administrative penalty, intended to deter improper conduct or the withholding of information by enterprises, that charge must be determined by the Member States in accordance with the REACH Regulation.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).


title: Case T-272/13: Action brought on 21 May 2013 — Max Mara Fashion Group/OHIM — Mackays Stores (M&Co.)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/47

         Action brought on 21 May 2013 — Max Mara Fashion Group/OHIM — Mackays Stores (M&Co.)
   (Case T-272/13)
   2013/C 207/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Max Mara Fashion Group Srl (Torino, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mackays Stores Ltd (Renfrew, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 7 March 2013 in Case R 1199/2012-2;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘M&Co.’ for goods and services in classes 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 128 679

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing the word element ‘MAX&Co.’ for goods and services in classes 18, 24, 25, 35, 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-5/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Exclusion of certain expenditure — Fruit and vegetables — Oranges — Animal premiums — Bovine animals — Sheep and goats)

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-5/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Exclusion of certain expenditure - Fruit and vegetables - Oranges - Animal premiums - Bovine animals - Sheep and goats)
   (2005/C 243/01)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-5/03, Hellenic Republic (Agents: S. Charitaki and E. Svolopoulou) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande, assisted by N. Korogiannakis) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 3 January 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed,, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing 2 % of the expenditure incurred in the fruit and vegetable sector;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the parties to pay their own costs as to the remainder.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case T-746/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2016 — Biofa v Commission (Interim measures — Plant protection product — Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/17

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2016 — Biofa v Commission
   (Case T-746/15 R)
   ((Interim measures - Plant protection product - Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 090/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biofa AG (Münsingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Stallberg and S. Knoblich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, F. Moro and P. Ondrüsek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 301, p. 42).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-349/07 and T-350/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2009 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2009 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission
   (Case T-349/07 and T-350/07) (1)

   2009/C 113/89

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-10/08: Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/58

         Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)
   (Case T-10/08)
   (2008/C 64/93)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co. Ltd (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 October 2007 served to the representatives of the applicant on 30 October 2007, in Case R 1337/2006-3;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for an ‘Internal-combustion engine’ — Community Design No 000 163 290 — 0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd

      Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered US design in respect for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Patent No D 367 070

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Invalidity Division and declared the design invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs.


title: Case C-365/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Ordre des architectes v Belgian State

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Ordre des architectes v Belgian State
   (Case C-365/13)
   2013/C 274/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État (Belgium)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ordre des architectes

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Question referred

   In so far as they oblige each Member State, for the purpose of access to and pursuit of professional activities, to give the same effect on its territory to the evidence of formal qualifications to which they refer as to the evidence of formal qualifications which it itself issues, must Articles 21 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) be interpreted as preventing a State from requiring that, in order to be enrolled in a register of the Ordre des architectes, the holder of evidence of formal qualifications as an architect in accordance with Article 46 of that directive or the holder of evidence of formal qualifications referred to in Article 49(1) must also satisfy conditions concerning a professional traineeship or experience, equivalent to those required of the holders of diplomas issued on its territory after they have obtained those diplomas?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, P.22.


title: Case T-121/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents and sound recordings — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission
   (Case T-121/05) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and sound recordings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)
   2009/C 90/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-108/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-129/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
                         (2003/C 55/64)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-274/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/67)
                                                                    By order of 5 December 2002 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-120/02 ( 1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-274/02: Commission of the
                         (2003/C 55/65)                             European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-120/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                                Removal from the register of Case C-356/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/68)
        Removal from the register of Case C-129/02 ( 1)             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 55/66)                             from the register of Case C-356/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles): Anne Hennecart
                                                                    v Office National de l’Emploi.
By order of 17 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-241/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/11

         Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-241/13)
   2013/C 189/22
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations to transpose Article 2(10), (20) and (22), Article 3(3) and (4), Article 7(3), Article 9(5), (7) and (12), Article 10(5), Article 11(5)(a) and (b), Articles 12, 13, 15 and 16, Article 26(2)(b), the second, fourth and fifth sentences of Article 26(2)(c), the third and fourth sentences of Article 26(2)(d), Article 26(3), Article 27(2), Article 33, the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 36(4), Article 36(6) and (8), the third subparagraph of Article 36(9), Article 41(1)(d), (e), (i), (k), (n), (p), (q) and (s), Article 41(6)(c), the second and third sentences of Article 41(9), Article 41(10), Article 44(3), the second, third, fifth and seventh indents of the first subparagraph of point 1(a) of Annex I, the second subparagraph of point 1(a) of Annex I, point 1(b), (d), (f). (h), (i) and (j) of Annex I and point 2 of Annex I of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for transposition of the directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Estonia, for breaching the obligation to notify the measures transposing the directive, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 4224 a day from the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: Case C-533/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Roubaix (France) lodged on 17 November 2010 — CIVAD SA v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Roubaix (France) lodged on 17 November 2010 — CIVAD SA v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes
   (Case C-533/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/38
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d'instance de Roubaix

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CIVAD SA

      Defendants: Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the unlawfulness of a Community regulation, which cannot in fact or in law be challenged by a trader by means of an individual action to have it annulled, amount for that trader to a case of force majeure which permits the time-limit provided for in the second sub-paragraph of Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code to be exceeded (1)?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, do the provisions of the third sub-paragraph of Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code require the customs authorities to repay anti-dumping duties of their own initiative when the unlawfulness of those duties has been found following a challenge to their lawfulness by a Member State of the World Trade Organisation (‘the W.T.O.’):

                           1.

                           from the time of the first communication of the country concerned contesting the lawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation;

                           2.

                           from the time of the panel report finding the unlawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation;

                           3.

                           from the time of the report of the Appellate Body of the W.T.O. which led the European Community to recognise the unlawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-303/11: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/66

      Order of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)
      (Case T-303/11) (1)

      (2012/C 25/126)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2000 in Case C-348/97: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Trade with the German Democratic Republic prior to German reunification — Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 — Abolition of customs formalities — Failure to charge import levies in inter-German trade — Failure to make own resources available to the Commission)

text:
9.9.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 259/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June
                                                                                1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in
                                                                                order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls
                          (First Chamber)                                           on live animals and certain animal products and amending
                                                                                Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, Ireland has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under that subparagraph;
                           of 8 June 2000
                                                                              2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
in Case C-190/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
                               period)
                          (2000/C 259/01)                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 15 June 2000
                                                                              in Case C-348/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-190/99: Commission of the European Communities                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Trade
(Agent: P. Oliver) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — appli-                   with the German Democratic Republic prior to German
cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,                  reunification — Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 — Abolition
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply                  of customs formalities — Failure to charge import levies in
with Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending                      inter-German trade — Failure to make own resources
and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure                                           available to the Commission)
financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
animals and certain animal products and amending Directives
90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1) and/or by                                                  (2000/C 259/02)
failing to inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,                                         (Language of the case: German)
P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 June 2000, in which it:                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed periods
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        In Case C-348/97: Commission of the European Communities
      comply with the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph        (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt) v Federal Republic of Germany
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             9.9.2000
(Agents: E: Röder and C.-D. Quassowski) — application for a                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
declaration that, by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of Com-
mission Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 of 31 July 1990 con-
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
cerning the methods of implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2060/90 on transitional measures concerning trade
with the German Democratic Republic in the agriculture and                                           of 15 June 2000
fisheries sector (OJ 1990 L 203, p. 61), goods for which a
refund had been granted on their importation from the                      in Case C-302/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Netherlands to be brought into the Federal Republic of                     the Bundessozialgericht): Manfred Sehrer v Bundes-
Germany without a levy corresponding to the Community                                                 knappschaft (1)
level of prices being charged and made available to the
Community and by abolishing all customs formalities in inter-
German trade and by not adopting the measures required to                  (Freedom of movement for workers — Social security —
implement Regulation No 2252/90, the Federal Republic of                   Sickness insurance contributions levied by a Member State
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty           on supplementary retirement pensions payable under an
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de                 agreement in another Member State — Basis for calculating
Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as President               contributions — Taking into account of contributions
of the Fifth Chamber, L Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,                            already deducted in that other Member State)
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 Feb-                                        (2000/C 259/03)
ruary 2000, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.     Declares that, by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of Commission     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 of 31 July 1990 concerning                                 in the European Court Reports)
       the methods of implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
       No 2060/90 on transitional measures concerning trade with
       the German Democratic Republic in the agriculture and fisheries     In Case C-302/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
       sector (OJ 1990 L 203, p. 61), goods for which a refund had         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-
       been granted on their exportation from the Netherlands to be        richt, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
       brought into the Federal Republic of Germany without a levy         pending before that court between Manfred Sehrer and
       corresponding to the Community level of prices being charged        Bundesknappschaft, joined party: Landesversicherungsanstalt
       and made available to the Community and by abolishing all           für das Saarland — on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 and
       customs formalities in inter-German trade and by not adopting       49 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC,
       the measures required to implement Regulation No 2252/90,           39 EC and 40 EC), Article 50 of the EC Treaty (now Article 41
       the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its            EC), Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
       obligations under the EC Treaty;                                    Article 42 EC) and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                           security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                           persons and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                           Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) —
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
                                                                           Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
                                                                           chet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-
                                                                           Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                precludes a Member State from calculating the sickness insurance
                                                                           contributions of a retired worker subject to its legislation on the basis
                                                                           of the gross amount of the supplementary retirement pension payable
                                                                           under an agreement which that worker draws in another Member
                                                                           State, without taking account of the fact that a part of the gross
                                                                           amount of that pension has already been deducted by way of sickness
                                                                           insurance contributions in the latter State.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


C 55/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case C-260/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/46)                                                          (2003/C 55/49)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/01 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-260/01: European Parliament v
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Finanziaria Immobiliare            Council of the European Union.
Perugino SpA v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-310/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-90/01 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/50)
                         (2003/C 55/47)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-310/01 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-90/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, AMGA —
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): San Marco SpA and Others
                                                                        Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. v Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l, A.G.E.S.I. —
v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-231/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-346/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/48)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/51)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-231/01 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): El. Da Srl v Ministero delle       from the register of Case C-346/01: Commission of the
Finanze.                                                                European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 December 2013 in Case E-15/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 6 December 2013
   in Case E-15/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests)
   2014/C 88/11
   In Case E-15/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests), as adapted by the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 6 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests), as adapted by the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-418/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — voestalpine and voestalpine Austria Draht v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/59

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — voestalpine and voestalpine Austria Draht v Commission
   (Case T-418/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/95
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: voestalpine AG (Linz, Austria), voestalpine Austria Draht GmbH (Bruck an der Mur, Austria) (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber and G. Fussenegger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel, in so far as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel. The contested decision imposed fines on the applicants and other undertakings for infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicants participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted action in the prestressing steel sector in the internal market and the EEA.
   In support of their action, the applicants have submitted three pleas in law.
   By the first plea in law, the applicants submit that they did not infringe Article 101 TFEU. They maintain that it is misconceived for them to be held liable for participation exclusively by virtue of a commercial agent in Italy, since that commercial agent did not represent the applicants at meetings of the ‘Club Italia’; the conduct of a non-exclusive commercial agent cannot be imputed to the applicants in the absence of an economic unit; the defendant’s automatic imputation of the conduct of a non-exclusive commercial agent is contrary to the case-law of the Court; and the applicants had no knowledge at all of the commercial agent’s actions. In the alternative, it is submitted that the duration of the infringement was set incorrectly with respect to the applicants.
   By the second plea in law, the applicants deny any participation in a single, complex and continuing infringement. They submit, inter alia, that the ‘Club Italia’ infringement is to be distinguished from other infringements referred to in the contested decision. Furthermore, they submit that they did not participate in a single, complex and continuing infringement since they had no knowledge of the overall plan, could not reasonably have foreseen it and would not have been prepared to accept the risks arising therefrom.
   Lastly, by their third plea, the applicants complain of errors in the calculation of the fine. The applicants allege infringement of the principle of proportionality, since a disproportionately large fine was imposed in connection with new (unforeseeable) legal issues and the same fine was imposed in the case of mere knowledge of infringements by other undertakings. Furthermore, infringements are said to have occurred in respect of the principle of equal treatment, the Guidelines on setting fines (1) and the rights of the defence, as well as the right to a fair trial.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-328/17: Action brought on 26 May 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/56

         Action brought on 26 May 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
   (Case T-328/17)
   (2017/C 239/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board328 of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘BBQLOUMI’ — Application for registration No 13 069 034

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16/03/2017 in Case R 497/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-80/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — AJ v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations — Appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of reasons)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — AJ v Commission
   (Case F-80/10)
   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons)
   2012/C 138/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AJ (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders AJ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.


title: Case C-551/08: Action brought on 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/9

         Action brought on 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-551/08)
   (2009/C 55/15)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (1), and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2005/68/EC expired on 10 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 323 of 9.12.2005, p. 1.


title: Case C-86/04: Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 85/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        3.4.2004
Action brought on 20 February 2004 by the Commission                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     the Court should:
                            Republic
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-83/04)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                             the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                         (2004/C 85/37)                                      winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
                                                                             event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                             Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Article 31 of that directive;
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
20 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Gonçalo Braga
de Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The period for transposition of the directive expired on
1.    declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regu-          20 April 2003.
      lations and administrative provisions needed in order to
      comply with Directive 2001/29/EC (1)of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the              (1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.
      harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
      rights in the information society, or, in any event, by
      having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 13 of that directive;
2.    order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-86/04)
The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 85/39)
(1) OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre,
                                                                       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                         (Case C-85/04)
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (2004/C 85/38)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                             the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                                                                             winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February                  Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 85/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Communities, represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 April 2003.                                            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                     the Court should:
(1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.                                    1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                                                                           winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
                                                                           event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission                       Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                         its obligations under that directive;
                             Belgium
                                                                     2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-87/04)
                        (2004/C 85/40)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The period for transposition of the directive expired on
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                 20 April 2003.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European                   (1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.


title: Case T-418/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Sina Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Amendment of pleadings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Adjustment of the effects in time of an annulment)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/16

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Sina Bank v Council
      (Case T-418/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Amendment of pleadings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Adjustment of the effects in time of an annulment))
      (2016/C 441/20)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment, on the one hand, of the Council decision, as contained in the notice published on 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 C 77, p. 1), to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and, on the other, Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 19), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 3), Council Decision 2015/1008/CFSP of 25 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 19) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 of 25 June 2015 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 1), in so far as those measures maintained the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644, and in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union, as contained in the notice published on 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to maintain the name of Sina Bank on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

                  2.

                  Annuls Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation No 267/2012, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 of 25 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 of 25 June 2015 implementing Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as those measures maintained the name of Sina Bank on the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644, or in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012;

                  3.

                  Maintains the effects of Decision 2015/1008, in respect of Sina Bank, from the date of its entry into force until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal has been brought within that period against the present judgment, until the date on which that appeal is dismissed;

                  4.

                  Orders the Council to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-490/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 21/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                (Case C-490/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 21/38)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-485/03.
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
                                                                        vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                              period all the measures necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-489/03)                                      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                              11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                                                                              to certain recently established firms in Vizcaya (notified
                          (2004/C 21/37)                                      under No C(2001)1763, or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                              notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
                                                                              with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
                                                                              its obligations under that decision;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-              —     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-485/03.
      period all the measures necessary to comply with
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
      11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by
      Spain to a number of recently created undertakings in
      Guipúzcoa (notified under No C(2001)1761) in the form
      of a tax credit of 45% of the investments made, or, in any
      event, by failing to notify the Commission of such
      provisions in accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of           Action brought on 20 November 2003 (fax on 13 Novem-
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that             ber 2003) by the Republic of Austria against the Com-
      decision;                                                                     mission of the European Communities
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-492/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
C-485/03.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 November 2003 (fax on 13 November
                                                                        2003) by the Republic of Austria, represented by Dr Harald
                                                                        Dossi, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-79/13: Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Accorinti and Others v ECB

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/26

         Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Accorinti and Others v ECB
   (Case T-79/13)
   2013/C 101/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Alessandro Accorinti (Nichelino, Italy), Michael Acherer (Bressanone, Italy), Giuliano Agostinetti (Mestre, Italy), Marco Alagna (Milan, Italy), Riccardo Alagna (Milan, Italy), Agostino Amalfitano (Forio, Italy), Emanuela Amsler (Turin, Italy), Francine Amsler (Turin, Italy), Alessandro Anelli (Bellinzago Novarese, Italy), Angelo Giovanni Angione (Potenza, Italy), Giancarlo Antonelli (Verona, Italy), Giuseppe Aronica (Licata, Italy), Elisa Arsenio (Sesto San Giovanni, Italy), Pasquale Arsenio (Sesto San Giovanni, Italy), Luigi Azzano (Concordia Sagittaria, Italy), Giovanni Baglivo (Lecce, Italy), Mario Bajeli (Bergamo, Italy) Stefano Baldoni (Matera, Italy), Giulio Ballini (Lonato, Italy), Antonino Barbara (Naples, Italy), Armida Baron (Cassola, Italy), Paolo Baroni (Rome, Italy), Lucia Benassi (Scandiano, Italy), Michele Benelli (Madignano, Italy), Erich Bernard (Lana, Italy), Flaminia Berni (Rome, Italy), Luca Bertazzini (Monza, Italy), Adriano Bianchi (Casale Corte Cerro, Italy), Massimiliano Bigi (Montecchio Emilia, Italy), Daniele Fabrizio Bignami (Milan, Italy), Sergio Borghesi (Coredo, Italy), Borghesi Srl (Cles, Italy), Sergio Bovini (Cogoleto, Italy), Savino Brizzi (Turin, Italy), Annunziata Brum (Badiola, Italy), Christina Brunner (Laives, Italy), Giovanni Busso (Caselette, Italy), Fabio Edoardo Cacciuttolo (Milan, Italy), Vincenzo Calabrò (Rome, Italy), Carlo Cameranesi (Ancona, Italy), Giuseppe Campisciano (Besana in Brianza, Italy), Allegra Canepa (Pisa, Italy), Luca Canonaco (Como, Italy), Piero Cantù (Vimercate, Italy), Fabio Capelli (Tortona, Italy), Gianluca Capello (Sanremo, Italy), Sergio Capello (Sanremo, Italy), Filippo Caracciolo di Melito (Lucca, Italy), Mario Carchini (Carrara, Italy), Filippo Carosi (Rome, Italy), Elena Carra (Rome, Italy), Claudio Carrara (Nembro, Italy), Ivan Michele Casarotto (Verona, Italy), Anna Maria Cavagnetto (Turin, Italy), Gabriele Lucio Cazzulani (Segrate, Italy), Davide Celli (Rimini, Italy), Antonio Cerigato (Ferrara, Italy), Paolo Enrico Chirichilli (Rome, Italy), Celestino Ciocca (Rome, Italy), Mariagiuseppa Civale (Milan, Italy), Benito Colangelo (Bollate, Italy), Roberto Colicchio (Milan, Italy), Edoardo Colli (Trieste, Italy), Nello Paolo Colombo (Casatenovo, Italy), Mario Concini (Tuenno, Italy), Marika Congestrì (S. Onofrio, Italy), Luigi Corsini (Pistoia, Italy), Maria Chiara Corsini (Genoa, Italy), Aniello Cucurullo (Civitavecchia, Italy), Roberto Cugola (Melara, Italy), Roberto Cupioli (Rimini, Italy), Giuseppe D’Acunto (Lucca — S. Anna, Italy), Stefano D’Andrea (Ancona, Italy), Nazzareno D’Amici (Rome, Italy), Michele Danelon (Gruaro, Italy), Piermaria Carlo Davoli (Milan, Italy), Iole De Angelis (Rome, Italy), Roberto De Pieri (Treviso, Italy), Stefano De Pieri (Martellago, Italy), Ario Deasti (Sanremo, Italy), Stefano Marco Debernardi (Aosta, Italy), Gianfranco Del Mondo (Casoria, Italy), Salvatore Del Mondo (Gaeta, Italy), Gianmaria Dellea (Castelveccana, Italy), Rocco Delsante (Langhirano, Italy), Gianmarco Di Luigi (Sant’Antimo, Italy), Alessandro Di Tomizio (Reggello, Italy), Donata Dibenedetto (Altamura, Italy), Angela Dolcini (Pavia, Italy), Denis Dotti (Milan, Italy), Raffaele Duino (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy), Simona Elefanti (Montecchio Emilia, Italy), Maurizio Elia (Rome, Italy), Claudio Falzoni (Besnate, Italy), Enrico Maria Ferrari (Rome, Italy), Giuseppe Ferraro (Pago Vallo Lauro, Italy), Fiduciaria Cavour Srl (Rome, Italy), Giorgio Filippello (Caccamo, Italy), Giovanni Filippello (Caccamo, Italy), Dario Fiorin (Venice, Italy), Guido Fortunati (Verona, Italy), Achille Furioso (Agrigento, Italy), Monica Furlanis (Concordia Sagittaria, Italy), Vitaliano Gaglianese (San Giuliano Terme, Italy), Antonio Galbo (Palermo, Italy), Gianluca Gallino (Milan, Italy), Giandomenico Gambacorta (Rome, Italy), Federico Gatti (Besana in Brianza, Italy), Raffaella Maria Fatima Gerardi (Lavello, Italy), Mauro Gini (Bressanone, Italy), Barbara Giudiceandrea (Rome, Italy), Riccardo Grillini (Lugo, Italy), Luciano Iaccarino (Verona, Italy), Vittorio Iannetti (Carrara, Italy), Franz Anton Inderst (Marlengo, Italy), Alessandro Lepore (Giovinazzo, Italy), Hermann Kofler (Merano, Italy), Fabio Lo Presti (Ponte S. Pietro, Italy), Silvia Locatelli (Brembate, Italy), Nicola Lozito (Grumo Appula, Italy), Rocco Lozito (Grumo Appula, Italy), Fabio Maffoni (Soncino, Italy), Silvano Maffoni (Orzinuovi, Italy), Bruno Maironi Da Ponte (Bergamo, Italy), Franco Maironi Da Ponte (Bergamo, Italy), Michele Maironi Da Ponte (Bergamo, Italy), Francesco Makovec (Lesmo, Italy), Concetta Mansi (Matera, Italy), Angela Marano (Melito di Napoli, Italy), Bruno Marchetto (Milan, Italy), Fabio Marchetto (Milan, Italy), Sergio Mariani (Milan, Italy), Lucia Martini (Scandicci, Italy), Alessandro Mattei (Treviso, Italy), Giorgio Matterazzo (Seregno, Italy), Mauro Mazzone (Verona, Italy), Ugo Mereghetti (Brescia, Italy) authorised to act for Fulvia Mereghetti (Casamassima, Italy), Vitale Micheletti (Brescia, Italy), Giuseppe Mignano (Genoa, Italy), Fabio Mingo (Ladispoli, Italy), Giovanni Minorenti (Guidonia Montecelio, Italy), Filippo Miuccio (Rome, Italy), Fulvio Moneta Caglio de Suvich (Milan, Italy), Giancarlo Monti (Milan, Italy), Angelo Giuseppe Morellini (Besana in Brianza, Italy), Barbara Mozzambani (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy), Mario Nardelli (Gubbio, Italy), Eugenio Novajra (Udine, Italy), Giorgio Omizzolo (Baone, Italy), Patrizia Paesani (Rome, Italy), Daniela Paietta (Arona, Italy), Luigi Paparo (Volla, Italy), Davide Pascale (Milan, Italy), Salvatore Pasciuto (Gaeta, Italy), Sergio Pederzani (Ossuccio, Italy), Aldo Perna (Naples, Italy), Marco Piccinini (San Mauro Torinese, Italy), Nicola Piccioni (Soncino, Italy), Stefano Piedimonte (Naples, Italy), Mauro Piliego (Bolzano, Italy), Vincenzo Pipolo (Rome, Italy), Johann Poder (Silandro, Italy), Giovanni Polazzi (Milan, Italy), Santo Pullarà (Rimini, Italy), Patrizio Ragusa (Rome, Italy), Rosangela Raimondi (Arluno, Italy), Massimo Ratti (Milan, Italy), Gianni Resta (Imola, Italy), Giuseppe Ricciarelli (San Giustino, Italy), Enrica Rivi (Scandiano, Italy), Maria Rizescu (Pesaro, Italy), Alessandro Roca (Turin, Italy), Mario Romeni (Milan, Italy), Claudio Romano (Naples, Italy), Gianfranco Romano (Pisticci, Italy), Ivo Rossi (Nettuno, Italy), Alfonso Russo (Scandiano, Italy), Iginio Russolo (San Quirinino, Italy), Francesco Sabato (Barcelona, Spain), Giuseppe Salvatore (Silvi, Italy), Luca Eudilio Sarzi Amadè, (Milan, Italy), Tiziano Scagliola (Terlizzi, Italy), Antonio Scalzullo (Avellino, Italy), Liviano Semeraro (Gavirate, Italy), Laura Liliana Serpente (Ancona, Italy), Maria Grazia Serpente (Ancona, Italy), Luciana Serra (Milan, Italy), Giuseppe Silecchia (Altamura, Italy), Paolo Sillani (Bergamo, Italy), Vincenzo Solombrino (Naples, Italy), Patrizia Spiezia (Casoria, Italy), Alberto Tarantini (Rome, Italy), Halyna Terentyeva (Concordia Sagittaria, Italy), Vincenzo Tescione (Caserta, Italy), Riccardo Testa (Cecina, Italy), Salvatore Testa (Pontinia, Italy), Nadia Toneatti (Trieste, Italy), Giuseppe Ucci (Como, Italy), Giovanni Urbanelli (Pescara, Italy), Giuseppina Urciuoli (Avellino, Italy), Amelia Vaccaro (Chiavari, Italy), Maria Grazia Valentini (Tuenno, Italy), Nicola Varacalli (Occhieppo Superiore, Italy), Giancarlo Vargiu (Bologna, Italy), Salvatore Veltri Barraco Alestra (Marsala, Italy), Roberto Vernero (Milan, Italy), Vincenza Vigilia (Castello d’Agogna, Italy), Celso Giuliano Vigna (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy), Roberto Vignoli (Santa Marinella, Italy), Georg Weger (Merano, Italy), Albino Zanichelli (Busana, Italy), Andrea Zecca (Rome, Italy), Maurizio Zorzi (Ora, Italy)
   (represented by: S. Sutti and R. Spelta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               having determined and assessed the liability of the European Central Bank (ECB) pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, order the defendant to make good the damage arising in the amount of at least EUR 12 504 614,98, or in such other amount as the Court may deem just and fair, subject to updating in the course of the proceedings, together with interest at the statutory rate and default interest on the amount, accruing from the due dates to the date of actual payment;

               —

               alternatively, again having determined and assessed the liability of the ECB pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, order the defendant to make good the damage arising in the amount of at least EUR 3 668 020,39, or in such other amount as the Court may deem just and fair, subject to updating in the course of the proceedings, together with interest at the statutory rate and default interest on the amount, accruing from the due dates to the date of actual payment;

               —

               in the further alternative, again having determined and assessed the liability of the ECB pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, order the defendant to make good the damage arising in the amount of at least EUR 2 667 651,19, or in such other amount as the Court may deem just and fair, subject to updating in the course of the proceedings, together with interest at the statutory rate and default interest on the amount, accruing from the due dates to the date of actual payment;

               —

               in the further and final alternative, order the ECB to make good the damage, on the basis of the lawful nature of the conduct in question or liability without fault, in the amount the Court deems just and fair;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants in the present proceedings submit that the defendant has incurred non-contractual liability on account of the manner in which it intervened in the restructuring of the Greek debt, and claim that the ECB is liable pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, since all the requirements for such liability are satisfied, namely, the alleged conduct of the ECB challenged by the applicants is unlawful, there is actual damage and there is a causal link between the damage and the conduct of the institution itself.
   In that connection, the applicants state that the defendant:

               —

               concluded in secret with the Hellenic Republic a bond swap agreement dated 15 February 2012;

               —

               failed or refused to participate in the restructuring of the Greek debt imposed on the Hellenic State in order to obtain the second tranche of aid, in a conflict of interest, since the ECB is itself part of the Troika;

               —

               adopted the decision of 5 March 2012 which made the eligibility of Greek securities as collateral conditional upon the provision of a buy-back scheme in favour of national central banks (NCBs) only, even if lacking credit quality.

         In support of the action, the applicants submit that the defendant’s course of conduct has had a direct, negative, causal impact on their legal positions which have suffered from the increase in the size of the ‘haircut’ for private investors, deferment of credit and the downgrading of private investors to the category of ‘junior’ creditors.
   The applicants submit that the conduct in question constitutes a clear infringement of higher rules of law intended to protect individuals, in particular the principles of (i) the equal treatment of creditors, (ii) non-discrimination and equality, (iii) proportionality, (iv) protection of legitimate expectations, (v) the protection of the legitimate expectations of the holders of securities, and (vi) legal certainty.
   In the alternative, should the Court of Justice not categorise the ECB’s conduct as unlawful, the applicants submit none the less that there is still strict liability or liability without fault on the part of the ECB or liability for a lawful act, since the ECB’s course of conduct challenged in the present proceedings has caused abnormal and special harm, in the light also of the fundamental rights as protected by the Charter of Nice, post the Treaty of Lisbon, referred to in Article 17 (property), Article 21 (principle of non-discrimination), Article 38 (consumer protection) and Article 41 (right to good administration) of that charter.