title: Appeal brought on 28 July 1998 by Sarrió SA against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-334/94 between Sarrió SA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-291/98 P)

text:
26.9.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/19
2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                  transactions) opened or effected before 1 August 1996 if
                                                                    the identity of the customer is established beforehand and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 paragraph 40(2) complied with. However, that provision
                                                                    still infringes paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 3 of the
                                                                    Directive because it does not cover the eventuality of the
Pursuant to the mandatory requirements of paragraph 3 of            proprietor of such a securities deposit account selling
Article 189 and paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the EC Treaty,          securities held in those accounts, if the securities are
Member States are under an obligation to transpose the              repaid or redeemed.
provisions of a directive addressed to them into national
law so that those provisions become fully effective on the
expiry of the deadline for effecting transposition. That            (1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.
deadline laid down in Article 16 of the Directive which, in
Austria's case, due to the entry into force of the Treaty on
the European Economic Area, expired on 1 January 1994,
passed without adequate measures to effect transposition
having been taken in respect of the following two areas of
regulation:
                                                                    Appeal brought on 28 July 1998 by Sarrió SA against the
Ð limitation of the scope of the Directive: paragraph 165           judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third
    of the Strafgesetzbuch makes money laundering a                 Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First
    criminal offence only where a threshold of ATS                  Instance of the European Communities in Case T-334/94
    100 000 is exceeded. The reference to the anti-money            between Sarrió SA and the Commission of the European
    laundering rules provided for in paragraph 278(a)(2)                                     Communities
    of the Strafgesetzbuch does nothing to allay the                                      (Case C-291/98 P)
    Commission's doubts about the incompatibility of
    paragraph 165 with Community law,                                                       (98/C 299/30)
Ð disclosure of customers' identity: the fact that
    paragraph 40 of the bank law expressly allows                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
    anonymous savings account books contradicts                     1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
    Article 3(1) of the Directive which requires credit and         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
    financial institutions to establish the identity of their       Case T-334/94 between Sarrió SA and the Commission of
    customers when entering into business relations,               the European Communities was brought before the Court
    particularly when opening an account or savings                 of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July 1998
    account'.                                                       by Sarrió SA, whose company seat is in Barcelona (Spain),
                                                                    represented by Alberto Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, Mario
                                                                    Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Francesco Maria Moretti,
Paragraph 40(2) of the bank law also infringes Article 3(5)         of the Venice Bar, with an address for service in
of the Directive, which requires credit and financial               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
institutions to take reasonable measures in the event of            Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.
doubt as to whether their customers are acting on their
own behalf or, where it is certain that they are not acting
on their own behalf, to obtain information as to the real
                                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
identity of the person on whose behalf the customers are
acting.
                                                                    1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Paragraph 40(1) (1) of the bank law also infringes                       14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v. Commission
Article 3(6) of the Directive because in transactions in                 in so far as the Court of First Instance:
connection with an anonymous savings account book,
establishing the identity of the customer carrying out the
transaction is of no practical use and does not in any                   Ð declares that the Commission decision did not
event enable any inferences to be drawn as to the actual                     impute to Sarrió an infringement concerning
economic relations. The duty of identification laid down                     transaction prices and holds that there is no need
in subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) of paragraph 40 of the                     to evaluate Sarrió's conduct as regards the prices
bank law in relation to specific situations cannot be                        actually applied,
applied meaningfully and in the spirit of the Directive to
transactions connected with anonymous savings account                    Ð declares that the mere fact of having participated
books.                                                                       in the PG Paperboard meetings implicates Sarrió in
                                                                             collusion on market shares and downtime; or, in
Finally, the duty of identification only took effect in                      the alternative, in so far as it does not regard
relation to securities accounts on 1 August 1996, placing                    Sarrió's non-implementation of the agreed
Austria in breach of the Directive up to that point. It is                   strategies as mitigating the seriousness of its
true that under paragraph 40(5) of the bank law, securities                  misconduct      by     comparison     with   other
may only be deposited or purchased for securities accounts                   undertakings and dismisses the evidence adduced
(and, under paragraph 12 of the deposit law, business                        by Sarrió to that effect; or, in the further
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
         alternative, in so far as it arrives at an erroneous          Ð failure to appraise the flawed reasoning underlying
         assessment of Sarrió's misconduct regarding                       calculation of the fine and contradictions between the
         market shares and downtime,                                       grounds and the operative part,
     Ð does not consider it necessary to set aside the fine            Ð failure to appraise the error in the method of
         imposed on Sarrió, wholly or in part, by reason of                calculating the fine,
         the inadequate statement of reasons (the Decision
         itself being silent as to the criteria used to calculate
         the level of that fine),                                      Ð contradiction between the grounds and the operative
                                                                           part as regards the granted reduction in the fine.
     Ð approves the method of calculating the fine
         imposed by the Commission, the amount in ecus
         being directly based on the conversion of the
         reference year turnover into ecus at the average
         exchange rate for that year, without appraising the
         legal consequences of such a burden or the damage
         caused to Sarrió by the use of such a method,                 Action brought on 28 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities against Italian Republic
     Ð sets a figure of ECU 1,5 million as the amount of                                       (Case C-292/98)
         the reduced fine (granted by reason of Prat                                            (98/C 299/31)
         Carton's reduced role in the infringement);
2. refer the case back to the Court of First Instance if it            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     decides that it is unable wholly or in part to give final         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     judgment in the matter;                                           28 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri
                                                                       Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
3. annul the Commission's decision to reflect its setting              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
     aside of any part of the judgment under appeal;                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
4. reduce the fine to a level which it considers                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
     reasonable;
                                                                       1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
5. order the Commission to pay all costs and fees                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
     incurred in the proceedings at first instance and in this
     appeal.                                                               (a) Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995
                                                                                amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the
                                                                                protection of animals during transport (1),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           (b) Commission Directive 96/6/EC of 16 February
The appellant contests certain specific parts of the                            1996 amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on
judgment under appeal in which, it maintains, the Court                         undesirable substances and products in animal
of First Instance misapplied Community law and breached                         nutrition (2),
its obligation to state proper grounds.
                                                                           or, in any event, by not having communicated such
In particular, the appellant maintains that the Court of                   measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
First Instance made the following errors of assessment in                  obligations under the Treaty and under those
appraising the legal position:                                             Directives;
Ð incorrect interpretation of the Decision in relation to              2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     the infringement imputed,                                             proceedings.
Ð incorrect interpretation and misapplication of                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Community law in holding that Sarrió's participation
     in the producers' meetings had by definition an anti-
     competitive effect; in the alternative, failure to                Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive
     evaluate the significance of its non-implementation of            is binding, as to the result to be achieved, on the Member
     the agreement; in the further alternative, incorrect              State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
     characterisation of the infringement committed,                   an obligation to comply with the time limits set by


title: Case C-73/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Council of the European Union v European Commission (Action for annulment — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing — Advisory opinion proceedings — Submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the European Union — No prior approval of the content of that statement by the Council of the European Union — Article 13(2) TEU, Article 16 TEU and Article 17(1) TEU — Article 218(9) TFEU and Article 335 TFEU — Representation of the European Union — Principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance — Principle of sincere cooperation)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-73/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea - Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing - Advisory opinion proceedings - Submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the European Union - No prior approval of the content of that statement by the Council of the European Union - Article 13(2) TEU, Article 16 TEU and Article 17(1) TEU - Article 218(9) TFEU and Article 335 TFEU - Representation of the European Union - Principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance - Principle of sincere cooperation))
   (2015/C 398/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Finnegan and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, A. Bouquet, E. Paasivirta and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, J. Vláčil and M. Hedvábná, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Karipsiadis and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize, and N. Rouam, acting as Agents); Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and G. Taluntytė, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Gijzen and M. de Ree, acting as Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by C. Pesendorfer and G. Eberhard, acting as Agents); Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and M.L. Duarte, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-205/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Ghent lodged on 19 April 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Lodewijk Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter BVBA

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Ghent lodged on 19 April 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Lodewijk Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter BVBA
   (Case C-205/07)
   (2007/C 140/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Beroep, Ghent
   Party to the main proceedings
   Lodewijk Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter BVBA
   Question referred
   Does the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices and the provision of information to and the protection of consumers constitute a measure having equivalent effect, as prohibited in Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, inasmuch as Article 80(3) of that national law prohibits demands for an advance or for payment from the consumer during the compulsory period for withdrawal, as a result of which the actual effect of the Law of 14 July 1991 on the trading of goods in the trader's own country differs from its effect on trading with nationals of another Member State and does this give rise in fact to an obstacle to the free movement of goods, which is protected by Article 23 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?


title: Case T-627/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/29

         Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
   (Case T-627/15)
   (2016/C 068/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, and E. Montelione, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BIANCALUNA’ — Application for registration No 11 251 808

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2952/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and/or

               —

               remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjamas, t-shirts, panties, undues.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-457/99: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 95/69/EC — Animal nutrition — Non-implementation)

text:
8.12.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/5
(Supreme Court), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between Riksskattever-
ket and Soghra Gharehveran — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the                                              (Fourth Chamber)
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of                                      of 11 October 2001
their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                 in Case C-457/99: Commission of the European Communi-
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                                      ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1,
p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), L. Sevón,
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,                  Directive 95/69/EC — Animal nutrition — Non-implemen-
                                                                                tation)
Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (2001/C 348/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
1.    Point G of Section I of the Annex to Council Directive
      80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                              in the European Court Reports)
      employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as
      amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of
      the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
      Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on             In Case C-457/99: Commission of the European Communities
      which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as         (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
      not allowing the Kingdom of Sweden to exclude from the group         I.-K. Chalkias and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a declar-
      of persons covered by the wage payment guarantee provided for        ation that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      by the Directive employees whose close relative owned, less than     administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
      six months before the petition in insolvency, at least 20 % of
      the shares of the company employing them, when the employees
      concerned did not themselves have any share in the capital of        —     Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing
      that company.                                                              the principles governing the organisation of official
                                                                                inspections in the field of animal nutrition (OJ 1995
                                                                                L 265, p. 17),
                                                                           —     Council Directive 95/69/EC of 22 December 1995 laying
2.    Where a Member State has designated itself as liable to fulfil             down the conditions and arrangements for approving
      the obligation to meet wage and salary claims guaranteed under             and registering certain establishments and intermediaries
      Directive 80/987/EEC, an employee whose spouse was owner                   operating in the animal feed sector and amending
      of the company employing her is entitled to rely on the right to           Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and
      claim pay against the Member State concerned before a national             82/471/EEC (OJ 1995 L 332, p. 15), and
      court, notwithstanding the fact that, in breach of the Directive,
      the legislation of that Member State expressly excludes from the
      group of persons covered by the guarantee employees whose            —     Commission Directive 97/72/EC of 15 December 1997
      close relative was owner of at least 20 % of the shares of the             amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
      company but who did not themselves have any share in the                   additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1997 L 351, p. 55),
      capital of that company.
                                                                           the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           the EC Treaty and those Directives — the Court (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamb-
                                                                           er, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                           S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                   judgment on 11 October 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
                                                                                the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Council Directive 95/69/EC of 22 December
                                                                                1995 laying down the conditions and arrangements for
                                                                                approving and registering certain establishments and intermedi-
                                                                                aries operating in the animal feed sector and amending
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.12.2001
      Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and                     the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      82/471/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its           J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
      obligations under that Directive;                                    Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2001, in which
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                           1.    As regards species covered by Appendix I to the Convention on
                                                                                International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
                                                                                Flora, concluded in Washington on 3 March 1973, Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the
                                                                                implementation in the Community of the Convention on
                                                                                International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
                                                                                Flora must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Member State which lays down a general prohibition in its
                                                                                territory of all commercial use of captive born and bred
                                                                                specimens.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 23 October 2001                                        As regards species covered by Annex A to Council Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of
                                                                                species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, that
in Case C-510/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        Regulation must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of
the Tribunal de grande instance de Grenoble (France)):                           a Member State which lays down a general prohibition in its
criminal proceedings against Xavier Tridon, third parties:                       territory of all commercial use of captive born and bred
Fédération départementale des chasseurs de l’Isère and                           specimens.
Fédération Rhône-Alpes de protection de la nature (Frap-
                        na), section Isère (1)
(Wild fauna and flora — Endangered species — Application                   2.    As regards species covered by Appendix II to the Convention,
      in the Community of the Washington Convention)                             Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 does not prohibit the commer-
                                                                                cial use of specimens of those species, apart from the case
                                                                                referred to in Article 6(2) where the specimens have been
                          (2001/C 348/10)                                        introduced contrary to Article 5 of that Regulation.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                As regards species covered by Annex B to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 338/97, that Regulation does not prohibit the commercial
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           use of specimens of those species, provided that the conditions
                   in the European Court Reports)                                laid down in Article 8(5) of that Regulation are met.
                                                                           Those regulations preclude legislation of a Member State imposing a
In Case C-510/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                 general prohibition in its territory of all commercial use of captive
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Grenoble (Regional              born and bred specimens of those species, in so far as it applies to
Court, Grenoble) (France) for a preliminary ruling in the                  specimens imported from other Member States, if it is apparent that
criminal proceedings pending before that court against Xavier              the objective of protection of the latter, as referred to in Article 15 of
Tridon, third parties: Fédération départementale des chasseurs             Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 or Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now,
de l’Isère and Fédération Rhône-Alpes de protection de la                  after amendment, Article 30 EC), may be achieved just as effectively
nature (Frapna), section Isère — on the interpretation of                  by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC), Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the implementation in
the Community of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (OJ 1982 L 384,
p. 1), in particular Articles 6 and 15, Council Regulation (EC)            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species
of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997
L 61, p. 1) and the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora concluded in
Washington on 3 March 1973, in particular Articles VII
and XIV — the Court, composed of: F. Macken, President of


title: Case T-328/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Jannatian v Council

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/40

         Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Jannatian v Council
   (Case T-328/14)
   2014/C 212/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: I. Smith Monnerville and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul insofar as they concern the applicant: (i) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, p. 39); (ii) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 281, p. 81); (iii) Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (OJ L 281, p. 1); (iv) (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 (OJ L 88, p. 1); (v) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 350/2012 of 23 April 2012 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 110, p. 17); (vi) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ l.208, p. 2); (vii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 282, p. 16); (viii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 356, p. 55); (ix) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 156, p. 3); (x) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 316, p. 1); and (xi) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 397/2014 of 16 April 2014 implementing (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 356, p. 1);

               —

               Order the Council to pay damages for the losses incurred due to the applicant’s wrongful listing in the amount of 40  000 Euros;

               —

               Order the Council to pay all of the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging lack of authority of the Council

                           —

                           The applicant submits that pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, restrictive measures can only be adopted by a joint initiative of the Commission and the High Representative. The Contested Decisions and Regulations were adopted by the Council acting alone. They are thus vitiated by lack of authority.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation to the obligation to state the reasons

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the reason stated for his listing in Annex II are too imprecise to meet the requirements set by the case law as regards the obligation to state the reasons. In order to comply with the obligation to state the grounds, the Council should have established the concrete and specific elements characterizing the existence of an effective support provided by the applicant to the Government of Iran or to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Contested Decisions and Regulations are thus vitiated by a failure to state the grounds.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights

                           —

                           The applicant submits that, first, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence. Second, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated. Third, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures — which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ — is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of evidence against the Applicant

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Council failed to adduce the elements of evidence and information it relied on when it adopted the Contested Decisions and Regulations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging factual inaccuracy

                           —

                           The applicant submits that contrary to what is stated in the contested Decisions and Regulations, the applicant was no longer Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization at the respective dates of his listing among the persons and entities falling within the ambit of restrictive measures. The Council therefore erred in fact when it listed the applicant for the sole reason that, at the date of the various Contested Decisions and Regulations, he was the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging error of law

                           —

                           The applicant submits that subparagraph b) of Article 20 is not meant to apply per se to individuals who hold managerial positions in an entity listed in Annex VIII. In addition, Article 20 b) provides for this listing of individuals ‘that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities’. By listing the applicant in Annex II without adducing any evidence that the applicant was providing an active and effective support to Iranian nuclear activities at the time of his listing in Annex II, the Council erred in law.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts and violation of the proportionality principle

                           —

                           The applicant submits that in the case at hand no objective of general interest might justify that such stringent measures be imposed on individuals having held even for a brief period a managing position with the AEOI. Furthermore, even if the measures were considered as being justified by an objective of general interest, they would still be open to criticism by failing to respect a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 April 1996 in Case T-13/95: Nicolaos Kyrpitsis v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Notice of vacancy - Transfer - Interests of the service - Rejection of application - Statement of reasons)

text:
No C 158/ 12          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 6 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-83/95 ( )                      Removal from the register of Case C- 1 5 9/95 ( )
                         ( 96/C 158/28 )                                                       ( 96/C 158/29 )
By order of 26 February 1996 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communites ordered the removal              By order of 9 February 1 996 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-83/95 : Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .                         from the register of Case C-159/95 : Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                    C ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all
                                                                         the costs .
                       of 18 April 1996
in Case T-13/95 : Nicolaos Kyrpitsis v. Economic and Social
         Committee of the European Communities ( 1 )                C ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
(Officials — Notice of vacancy — Transfer — Interests of
the service — Rejection of application — Statement of
                             reasons)
                         ( 96/C 158/30 )
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 23 April 1996
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    in Case T-l 13/95 : Giuseppe Mancini v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities O
                                                                      (Officials — Admissibility — Time limit for complaints)
In Case T-13/95 : Nicolaos Kyrpitsis, an official of the                                      ( 96/C 158/31 )
Economic and Social Committee of the European
Communities, residing at Châtelineau ( Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an                         (Language of the case: Italian)
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener, v . Economic and             In Case T-l 13/95 : Giuseppe Mancini, an official of the
Social Committee of the European Communities ( Agents :             Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for             Varese ( Italy ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
annulment of the decisions rejecting the applications by the        advocate with a right of audience before the Italian Court of
applicant for the grade D 3/D 2 post of skilled employee            Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( messenger ) in the Personnel , Administration and Finance         Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Matthias Hardt, v.
Directorate of the Economic and Social Committee,                   Commission of the European Communites ( Agent:
advertised in vacancy notices Nos 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94 — the         Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:             decision relieving the applicant of his duties — the Court of
R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and               First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the      President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 April 1996 , in which         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
it :                                                               given a judgment on 23 April 1 996 , in which it:
                                                                    1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1 , annuls the decisions of the Secretary-General of the
     Economic and Social Committee of30 March 1 994 and            2 , orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
     25 October 1995 rejecting the applications by the                  two thirds of the applicant's costs.
     applicant for the grade D 3/D 2 post ofskilled employee
     (messenger) in the Personnel, Administration and
                                                                    (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     Finance Directorate of the Economic and Social
     Committee, advertised in vacancy notices Nos 2/94,
     3 /94 and 4/94 :


title: Case T-203/14: Action brought on 31 March 2014 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/32

         Action brought on 31 March 2014 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)
   (Case T-203/14)
   2014/C 212/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mo Industries LLC (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 given in Case R 1542/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Splendid’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 13  131

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.


title: Case T-656/11: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/20

         Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council
   (Case T-656/11) (1)

   2012/C 250/38
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case C-269/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/5

         Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-269/05)
   (2005/C 229/11)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Georgios Zavvos, members of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               (1)

               declare that, by maintaining in force the harbour dues levied on passenger vessels (including cruise ships) or on cargo vessels when they enter into harbour, berth and anchor in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, applying a lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within Greece as compared with cases where transport is to a destination outside Greece, namely:

                           —

                           harbour dues for the benefit of the harbour funds of the Port Authorities AE, set up by Law No 2932/2001, and of the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which are levied on vehicles aboard ferries on international routes, while similar dues are not levied on routes between Greek ports,

                           —

                           the right to levy dues on vehicles aboard vehicle ferries with a foreign port destination for the benefit of municipalities and communities under Article 26(13) of Law No 1828/1989,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not transpose correctly into its national legal system the provisions of Regulation No 4055/86, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (Case C-381/93 Commission v France,
       (2) Case C-18/93 Corsica Ferries Italia, (3) and Case C-435/00 Geha Naftiliaki
       (4)).

      (1)  OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.

      (2)  [1994] ECR I-5145.

      (3)  [1998] ECR I-1783.

      (4)  [2002] ECR I-10615.


title: Action brought on 15 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-142/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 181 /5
     ( b) in view of Austria's accession to the European                 15 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
           Union on 1 January 1995 ?                                     Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, assisted by Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples
                                                                         Bar, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     If Question 3 is to be answered in the negative :                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
4. Does the failure to transpose merely Article 7 of the
     Directive within the period fixed in itself constitute a
     sufficiently serious breach of Community law and give               The applicant claims that the Court should:
     rise to a right of reparation on the part of the persons
     injured where the Member State has adopted relevant
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions
     measures for the transposition of all other provisions                     necessary to comply with Commission Directive
     of the Directive within that period ?                                      94/1 /EC ( 1 ) of 6 January 1994 adapting some
                                                                                technicalities of Council Directive 75/324/EEC ( 2 ) on
5 . Must Article 7 of the Directive be interpreted as                           the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     meaning that its objectives are not achieved where                         relating to aerosol dispensers, the Italian Republic has
     national rules :                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
     ( a ) require, for the purpose of covering the risk, only           — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
           a contract of insurance or a bank guarantee for a
           sum insured ( insurance cover) of at least 5 % of
           turnover from an organizer's activity as organizer            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           in the corresponding quarter of the previous
           calendar year,
                                                                         Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
     ( b ) require the organizer, in the first year of his               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
           activity, to take his estimated turnover from his             upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
           intended activity as organizer as the basis for               Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
           determining the sum insured ( insurance cover ),              down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
                                                                         expired on 1 October 1994 without the Italian Republic
     ( c ) do not thereby take into consideration increases in           having brought into force the necessary provisions in
           the organizer's turnover during the current year,             order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
           and                                                           Commission 's application .
     ( d ) do not provide for any duty on the Member State               (') OJNoL 23 , 28 . 1 . 1994, p . 28 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 40 .
           to monitor the security required ?
6.   Is there a direct causal link between a failure to
     transpose Article 7 of the Directive on time or
     completely and a loss on the part of the consumer
     which renders the Member State liable to refund the
     unsecured payments in full even where the Member                    Action brought on 15 April 1997 by the Commission of
     State proves that unlawful acts on the part of the                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     organizer (a third party ) or a wholly extraordinary or
     unforeseeable      increase   in   the  risk  are  the  cause                                   ( Case C-142/97
     ( essential contributory cause ) of the loss ?                                                    ( 97/C 181 / 10 )
(') OJ No L 158 , 1990, p . 59 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         15 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, assisted by
                                                                         Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, acting as Agents, with
Action brought on 15 April 1997 by the Commission of                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-141 /97
                            ( 97/C 181 /09 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 ---pagebreak--- No C 181 /6             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 6 . 97
     Council Directive 92/43/EEC ( J ) of 21 May 1992 on                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesge
     the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                 richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of
     and flora, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. GZS
     obligations under that Directive,                                                 Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-147/97)
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /12 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                European Communities by the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,                            Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main by order of that court
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid                  of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v.
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit                 GZS Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH on the
expired on 5 June 1992 without the Italian Republic                         following questions :
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application .
(') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 71 .                                   1 . Must Article 90 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that, in so far as a law ratifying the
                                                                                Conventions     of    the   Universal  Postal  Union      of
                                                                                14 December 1989 creates the right for the postal
                                                                                service of Member State A to demand internal rates
                                                                                for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B or to
                                                                                refuse delivery if internal rates are not paid, where the
                                                                                content of the letters is determined by an undertaking
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Tra                        in Member State A and transmitted by electronic data
vail de Liege by judgment of that court of 28 March 1997                        transfer to an undertaking having its seat in Member
in the case of Office National des Pensions ( ONP) v.                           State B in order to be printed out, prepared for
                          Francesco Conti
                                                                                dispatch and handed over to the postal service there,
                          ( Case C-143 /97 )                                    that law constitutes a State measure by which,
                                                                                contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, a measure
                            ( 97/C 181 / 11 )
                                                                                was adopted conflicting with Article 86 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty which does not fall within the exceptions
                                                                                contemplated by Article 90 ( 2 )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du Tra
vail de Liege ( Higher Labour Court, Liege ) of 28 March
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
16 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Of                  2 . Are Articles 30 et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty
fice National des Pensions v. Francesco Conti on the                            to be interpreted as meaning that the power of the
following question:                                                             postal service in Member State A to demand internal
                                                                                rates for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B
                                                                                to addressees resident in Member State A or to refuse
Is the concept of a provision for reduction of benefit in                       to deliver such letters if internal rates are not paid is
Articles 12 ( 2 ), 46 ( 3 ) and 46 ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC )                  contrary to the guarantee of the free movement of
No 1408/71 (') to be interpreted as referring to a                              goods where the content of the letters is determined by
legislative provision of a Member State which, in                               an undertaking in Member State A and transmitted by
providing that the amount of the retirement pension of an                       electronic data transfer to an undertaking having its
employed person who has not completed a total of                                seat in Member State B in order to be printed out,
30 years of employment but has completed at least                               prepared for dispatch and handed over to the postal
25 years is to be increased by a supplement, states that                        service there ?
that supplement is to be equal to the difference between
the amount of the retirement pension which the worker
would have received if he had in fact been employed for
30 years and the total amount of the retirement pensions
which he can claim under a national scheme or a scheme                      3 . In the event that the answer to the above questions
of another Member State ?                                                       submitted for a preliminary ruling discloses an
                                                                                infringement of Community law only because the
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                                postal service of Member State A receives or can
                                                                                enforce, by refusing to deliver mail, payment of
                                                                                internal rates in addition to the postal charges paid in
                                                                                Member State B or in addition to the terminal dues


title: Case T-82/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Rights of the defence — Proof of participation in the cartel — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Proportionality — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission
   (Case T-82/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Rights of the defence - Proof of participation in the cartel - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Proportionality - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 346/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Panasonic Corp. (Kadoma, Japan); and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd (Matsuocho, Japan) (represented by: R. Gerrits and A.-H. Bischke, lawyers, M. Hoskins QC, and S.K. Abram, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes), in so far as it concerns the applicants, or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fines imposed by Article 2(2)(f), (h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) at EUR 128 866 000, so far as concerns Panasonic Corp., for its direct participation in the infringement concerning the colour picture tubes for television sets market; at EUR 82 826 000, so far as concerns Panasonic, Toshiba Corp. and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, jointly and severally, and at EUR 7 530 000, so far as concerns Panasonic and MT Picture Display, jointly and severally;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


10.11.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
The Commission submits that the provisions of Articles 5(c)                    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply equally to live or dead                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
birds and to readily recognisable parts or derivatives of birds                Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of
and to their eggs which a person keeps on the territory of the                 the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
legislating Member State and which have been killed, captured                  87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
or otherwise acquired, or of which that person has obtained                    lations and administrative provisions of the Member
possession by any other means in a Member State other than                     States concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by
the legislating Member State, subject to Articles 1 and 9 as                   failing to communicate such provisions to the Com-
regards the prohibition on keeping refered to in Article 5(c)                  mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
and (e), and subject to Article 6(2) as regards the acts referred              obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
to in Article 6(1) of the directive. Consequently, Articles 5(c)         2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply to species and subspecies
of birds naturally occurring in the wild state in the European
territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies,              Pleas in law and main arguments
even though not naturally occurring in the wild state in
Belgium, and also to subspecies of birds naturally occurring in          According to Article 2(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of
the wild state only outside the European territory of the                Spain was to have brought into force the provisions necessary
Member States where the species to which they belong or                  to comply with it no later than 21 April 2001 and inform the
other subspecies of that species occur naturally in the wild             Commission immediately thereof.
state in the territory in question.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.
The period for transposing the directive expired on 16 April
1981.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 Removal from the register of Case C-412/00 (1)
    vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1).
                                                                                (2001/C 317/44)
                                                                         By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-412/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission                       (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                          (Case C-386/01)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-414/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/45)
                          (2001/C 317/43)
                                                                         By order of 10 September 2001 the President of the Fourth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 Octo-              has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-414/00:
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese
represented by I. Martı́nez del Peral, acting as Agent, with an          Republic.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of L. Escobar,
Wagner Centre C 254.                                                     (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.


title: Case F-68/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 March 2008 — Gering v Europol

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/63

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 March 2008 — Gering v Europol
   (Case F-68/07) (1)

   (2008/C 223/123)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2008, p. 42.


title: Case C-431/07 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2007 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2007 in Case T-475/04 Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/37

         Appeal brought on 18 September 2007 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2007 in Case T-475/04 Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission
   (Case C-431/07 P)
   (2007/C 269/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile, A. Bénabent, J. Vogel and L. Vogel, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, Société française de radiotéléphonie — SFR, Orange France SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the judgment delivered on 4 July 2007 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-475/04 Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration in the light of the legal views expressed by the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants raise four pleas in law in support of their appeal:
   By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Court of First Instance failed in its duty to state reasons in holding that the debt waiver at issue in the present case was inevitable due to the ‘the logic of the system’. Since the latter in fact constitutes a rule derogating from the principle that differential treatment of a number of companies necessarily constitutes a selective advantage, the Court should have given clear reasons both for the content of the logic of the system to which it refers and the causal link between the logic of the system and the established waiver of State resources.
   By their second plea, the applicants then claim that the Court erred in law in considering that the Commission was not under an obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure on the sole ground that the examination of the substance of the case showed, in its view, that an advantage for Orange and SFR had not been proven. Initiation of the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC is in fact justified each time the Commission is unable to ascertain, in the light of the evidence in its possession during the preliminary examination phase, whether or not a measure is compatible with the rules of the Treaty.
   By their third plea, the applicants criticise three errors made by the Court relating to the legal assessment of the facts, as regards, first, the alleged unicity of the procedures for awarding UMTS licences, secondly, the so-called uncertain nature of the debts waived by the State, and thirdly, the wording of the ministerial letter of 22 February 2001, which contained the assurance that the economic operators would be treated fairly but not equally.
   By their fourth plea, the applicants maintain that the Court committed several errors of law in applying Article 87(1) EC. Those errors relate, respectively, to the application of the exception based on the logic of the scheme, the appraisal of the (in)existence of a competitive advantage and the application of the principle of non-discrimination.


title: Case C-389/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
18.10.2003            EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 251/9
same as the express formal requirements laid down by                  15 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
Article 230 EC. Moreover, that excessively restrictive interpre-      Communities, represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent,
tation impairs effective judicial protection.                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Secondly, the Court of First Instance considered that the
requirement of direct and individual concern amounts to
being a requirement that a person should be a ‘party con-             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
cerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC; it also took the      the Court should:
view that waiver of the share warrant required by the State aid
package is not sufficient to result in the applicant's being
directly and individually concerned, and wrongly held that
the applicant is trying to obtain compensation for the damage         1.   declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
suffered during the Commission's procedure investigating                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
whether the measure complied with Community law.                           Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying
                                                                           down minimum standards for the protection of laying
                                                                           hens (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under that directive;
                                                                      2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities against the                    Pleas in law and main arguments
                     Kingdom of Belgium
                        (Case C-389/03)
                                                                      The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                      1 January 2002.
                        (2003/C 251/18)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   (1) OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 2005 in Case T-285/03 Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products — Production aid for processed tomato products — Method of calculating the amount — 2000-01 marketing year)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/26

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 17 March 2005
   in Case T-285/03 Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products - Production aid for processed tomato products - Method of calculating the amount - 2000-01 marketing year)
   (2005/C 132/47)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-285/03: Agraz, SA and Others, established in Madrid (Spain), Agrícola Conservera de Malpica, SA, established in Tolède (Spain), Agridoro Soc. coop. rl, established in Pontenure (Italy), Alfonso Sellitto SpA, established in Mercato S. Severino (Italy), Alimentos Españoles, Alsat, SL, established in Don Benito, Badajoz (Spain), AR Industrie Alimentari SpA, established in Angri (Italy), Argo Food — Packaging & Innovation Co. SA, established in Serres (Greece), Asteris Industrial Commercial SA, established in Athens (Greece), Attianese Srl, established in Nocera Superiore (Italy), Audecoop distillerie Arzens — Techniques séparatives (AUDIA), established in Montréal (France), Benincasa Srl, established in Angri, Boschi Luigi & Figli SpA, established in Fontanellato (Italy), CAS SpA, established in Castagnaro (Italy), Calispa SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio (Italy), Campil — Agro Industrial do Campo do Tejo, Lda, established in Cartaxo (Portugal), Campoverde Srl, established in Carinola (Italy), Carlo Manzella & C. Sas, established in Castel San Giovanni (Italy), Carmine Tagliamonte & C. Srl, established in Sant'Egidio del Monte Albino (Italy), Carnes y Conservas Españolas, SA, established in Mérida (Spain), Cbcotti Srl, established in Nocera Inferiore (Italy), Cirio del Monte Italia SpA, established in Rome (Italy), Consorzio Ortofrutticoli Trasformati Polesano (Cotrapo) Soc. coop. rl, established in Fiesso Umbertiano (Italy), Columbus Srl, established in Parma (Italy), Compal — Companhia produtora de Conservas Alimentares, SA, established in Almeirim (Portugal), Conditalia Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Conservas El Cidacos, SA, established in Autol (Spain), Conservas Elagón, SA, established in Coria (Spain), Conservas Martinete, SA, established in Puebla de la Calzada (Spain), Conservas Vegetales de Extremadura, SA, established in Bajadoz, Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl, established in San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), ConservesFranceSA, established in Nîmes (France), Conserves Guintrand SA, established in Carpentras (France), Conservificio Cooperativo Valbiferno Soc. coop. rl, established in Guglionesi (Italy), Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. coop. rl, established in Rivarolo del Re ed Uniti (Italy), Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo (Copador) Soc. coop. rl, established in Collecchio (Italy), Copais Food and Beverage Company SA, established in Nea Ionia (Greece), Tin Industry D. Nomikos SA, established in Marousi (Greece), Davia Srl, established in Gragnano (Italy), De Clemente Conserve Srl, established in Fisciano (Italy), DE. CON Srl, established in Scafati (Italy), Desco SpA, established in Terracina (Italy), ‘Di Lallo’ — Di Teodoro di Lallo & C. Snc, established in Scafati, Di Leo Nobile — SpA Industria Conserve Alimentari, established in Castel San Giorgio, Marotta Emilio, established in Sant'Antonio Abate (Italy), E. & O. von Felten SpA, established in Fontanini (Italy), Egacoop, S. Coop., Lda, established in Andosilla (Spain),Elais SA, established in Athens, Emiliana Conserve Srl, established in Busseto (Italy), Perano Enrico & Figli Spa, established in San Valentino Torio (Italy), FIT — Fomento da Indústria do Tomate, SA, established in Águas de Moura (Portugal), Faiella & C. Srl, established in Scafati, ‘Feger’ di Gerardo Ferraioli SpA, established in Angri, Fratelli D'Acunzi Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Fratelli Longobardi Srl, established in Scafati, Fruttagel Soc. coop. rl, established in Alfonsine (Italy), G3 Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Giaguaro SpA, established in Sarno (Italy), Giulio Franzese Srl, established in Carbonara di Nola (Italy), Greci Geremia & Figli SpA, established in Parme, Greci — Industria Alimentar SpA, established in Parme, Greek Canning Co. SA Kyknos, established in Nauplie (Greece), Grilli Paolo & Figli — Sas di Grilli Enzo e Togni Selvino, established in Gambettola (Italy), Heinz Iberica, SA, established in Alfaro (Spain), IAN — Industrias Alimentarias de Navarra, SA, established in Vilafranca (Spain), Industria Conserve Alimentari Aniello Longobardi — Di Gaetano, Enrico & Carlo Longobardi Srl, established in Scafati, Industrias de Alimentação Idal, Lda, established in Benavente (Portugal), Industrias y Promociones Alimentícias, SA, established in Miajadas (Spain), Industrie Rolli Alimentari SpA, established in Roseto degli Abruzzi (Italy), Italagro — Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares, SA, established in Castanheira do Ribatejo (Portugal), La Cesenate Conserve Alimentari SpA, established in Cesena (Italy), La Dispensa di Campagna Srl, established in Castagneto Carducei (Italy), La Doria SpA, established in Angri, La Dorotea di Giuseppe Alfano & C. Srl, established in Sant'Antonio Abate, La Regina del Pomodoro Srl, established in Sant'Egidio del Monte Albino, ‘La Regina di San Marzano’ di Antonio, Felice e Luigi Romano Snc, established in Scafati, La Rosina Srl, established in Angri, Le Quattro Stelle Srl, established in Angri, Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio, Louis Martin production SAS, established in Monteux (France), Menú Srl, established in Medolla (Italy), Mutti SpA, established in Montechiarugolo (Italy), National Conserve Srl, established in Sant'Egidio del Monte Albino, Nestlé España, SA, established in Miajadas, Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Verignola (Italy), Pancrazio SpA, established in Cava De'Tirreni (Italy), Pecos SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio, Pelati Sud di De Stefano Catello Sas, established in Sant'Antonio Abate, Pomagro Srl, established in Fisciano, Pomilia Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Raffaele Viscardi Srl, established in Scafati, Rispoli Luigi & C. Srl, established in Altavilla Silentina (Italy), Rodolfi Mansueto SpA, established in Collecchio, Riberal de Navarra S. en C., established in Castejon (Spain), Salvati Mario & C. SpA, established in Mercato San Severino, Saviano Pasquale Srl, established in San Valentino Torio, Sefa Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Serraiki Konservopia Oporokipeftikon Serko SA, established in Serres, Sevath SA, established in Xanthi (Greece), Silaro Conserve Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, ARP — Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini Soc. coop. rl, established in Gariga di Podenzano (Italy), Société coopérative agricole de transformations and de ventes (SCATV), established in Camaret-sur-Aigues (France), Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas — Sopragol, SA, established in Mora (Portugal), Spineta SpA, established in Pontecagnano Faiano (Italy), Star Stabilimento Alimentare SpA, established in Agrate Brianza (Italy), Steriltom Aseptic — System Srl, established in Plaisance (Italy), Sugal Alimentos, SA, established in Azambuja (Portugal), Sutol — Indústrias Alimentares, Lda, established in Alcácer do Sal (Portugal), Tomsil — Sociedade Industrial de Concentrado de Tomate, SA, established in Ferreira do Alentejo (Portugal), Transformaciones Agrícolas de Badajoz, SA, established in Villanueva de la Serena (Spain), Zanae — Nicoglou levures de boulangerie industrie commerce alimentaire SA, established in Thessalonica (Greece), represented by J. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M Melícias and D. Choussy, avocats, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Nolin, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, F. Dehousse and E. Cremona, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear five sixths of their costs and the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay one sixth of the applicant's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.


title: Case C-95/11: Action brought on 28 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/11

         Action brought on 28 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-95/11)
   2011/C 186/18
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and H. Peytz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by allowing for non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

               —

               order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In order to simplify administration and prevent certain forms of abuse, the VAT Directive allows the Member States to regard two or more taxable persons as a single taxable person. The Commission takes the view that the Directive does not allow non-taxable persons to be part of such a VAT group and thereby be covered by the rights and obligations which apply to taxable persons. Therefore, the Danish legislation, which allows non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group, is not compatible with the Directive.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.