title: Amendment to the notice concerning Case T-507/10 in the Official Journal ( OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 28 )

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/38

         Amendment to the notice concerning Case T-507/10 in the Official Journal
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 13 of 15 January 2011, p. 28
      )
   2011/C 72/61
   The amended notice concerning Case T-507/10 Uspaskich v European Parliament in the Official Journal is as follows:

      Action brought on 28 October 2010 — Viktor Uspaskich v European Parliament
      (Case T-507/10)
      2011/C 72/61
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by Vytautas Sviderskis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the Decision of the European Parliament of 7 September 2010 No P7_TA(2010)0296 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant bases his application on four pleas in law.
      First of all, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed his rights of defence and the principle of good administration in procedure 2009/2147 (IMM). The European Parliament refused to hear the applicant during the procedure for waiver of his immunity both in the Committee on Legal Affairs and during the plenary session. It failed to take account of the majority of the applicant’s arguments and did not answer any of them.
      Second, the European Parliament adopted the contested decision on an incorrect legal basis and infringed point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union because it relied on a clearly incorrect interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 62 of the Lithuanian Constitution. The applicant refers to the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010 in Case T-42/06 Gollnisch v Parliament, in which the Court held that there had been an analogous infringement by the European Parliament.
      Third, the defendant failed to observe the fumus persecutionis principle and committed a manifest error of assessment when considering it. The defendant entirely disregarded its previous decisions regarding fumus persecutionis. The European Parliament failed, moreover, to take into account the fact that at the time of the decision to bring a criminal prosecution a political leader was not responsible for infringements connected with administration, and that material from the preliminary investigation had been published.
      Fourth, the defendant infringed the applicant’s right to submit a request to defend his immunity in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. It refused to examine the applicant’s request that it defend his immunity on the ground that the measure requiring him to pay a security of EUR 436 000 is disproportionate to the potential maximum fine for the criminal offence with which he is charged.


title: Case C-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/22

         Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-200/13 P)
   2013/C 171/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and S. Boelaert, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Saderat against the contested measures;

               —

               order Bank Saderat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10, Bank Saderat Iran v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:

               1.

               The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Saderat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;

               2.

               The General Court was wrong to hold that one of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat was insufficiently precise;

               3.

               The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council’s file;

               4.

               The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat were not substantiated, insofar as:

                           —

                           it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Saderat’s support to Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities comes from confidential sources;

                           —

                           it failed to take due account of a reference in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008) to Bank Saderat in connection with Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities;

                           —

                           it was mistaken to consider that the Council needed to produce detailed information concerning Bank Saderat’s handling of letters of credit of two designated entities involved in Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities.


title: Case C-291/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket (VAT — Place of taxable transactions — Place of supply for tax purposes — Service supplier established in a Member State other than that in which the customer is established — Status of taxable person — Services supplied to a national foundation carrying out both economic and non-economic activities)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket
   (Case C-291/07) (1)

   (VAT - Place of taxable transactions - Place of supply for tax purposes - Service supplier established in a Member State other than that in which the customer is established - Status of taxable person - Services supplied to a national foundation carrying out both economic and non-economic activities)
   (2008/C 327/06)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet

      Defendant: Skatteverket
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 9(2)(e) and 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Articles 56(1)(c) and 196 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National foundation which carries out both economic and other activities, using consultancy services supplied by a supplier established in another Member State in the context of its activities which do not fall within the scope of application of the Directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/59/EC of 17 June 1999, and Article 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where the customer for consultancy services supplied by a taxable person established in another Member State carries out both an economic activity and an activity which falls outside the scope of those directives, that customer is to be regarded as a taxable person even where the supply is used solely for the purposes of the latter activity.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T -155/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  11 January 2006  — Steinmetz v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2006 — Steinmetz v Commission
   (Case T -155/05) (1)

   (2006/C 74/62)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-44/00 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2000 by Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles (Sodima) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 149/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission                   the European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
   of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden                     T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et
                                                                       d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the European
                         (Case C-42/00)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 14 February 2000 by Société de
                                                                       Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles represented by
                        (2000/C 149/28)                                SCP Fourgoux & Associés, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                    Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
11 February 2000 by the Commission of the European                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Christina
Tufvesson, of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office        — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                             T-45/96;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Pleas in law and main arguments
    Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996 on
    access to the groundhandling market at Community                   Infringement of essential procedural requirements and funda-
    airports the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its            mental rights, infringement of the Treaty and error of appraisal
    obligations under that directive;                                  of the facts and law as regards admissibility of the actions.
2. order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments
The binding nature of the provisions in the third paragraph of
Article 249 and Article 10 of the EC Treaty requires the               Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Commission
Member States to take the necessary measures to implement              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
the directive in national law within the period laid down. The                                        Spain
period laid down in Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC expired
on 25 October 1997 without Sweden having promulgated the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive.                                                (Case C-48/00)
(1) OJ L 272 of 25.10.96, p. 36.                                                                 (2000/C 149/30)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February
                                                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Appeal brought on 14 February 2000 by Société de
Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 1999 by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and                      1. declare that by failing to adopt, implement and notify
T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques                      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
et d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the                        necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/41/EC (1)
                    European Communities                                   of 25 June 1997 amending Directives 76/895/EEC,
                                                                           86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the
                       (Case C-44/00 P)                                    fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
                                                                           respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of
                                                                           animal origin, and certain products of plant origin, includ-
                        (2000/C 149/29)                                    ing fruit and vegetables, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
                                                                           to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, and,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of            2. order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-137/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München — Germany) — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern (Request for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Organic production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Article 27(1)(f) — Use of certain products and certain substances in the processing of foodstuffs — Prohibition of the use of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients where not legally required — Addition of ferrous gluconate and vitamins to an organic beverage — Use of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients — Quantities required to allow sale as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München — Germany) — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-137/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Organic production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Article 27(1)(f) - Use of certain products and certain substances in the processing of foodstuffs - Prohibition of the use of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients where not legally required - Addition of ferrous gluconate and vitamins to an organic beverage - Use of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients - Quantities required to allow sale as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use))
   (2015/C 007/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products must be interpreted as meaning that the use of one of the substances referred to is legally required only when a provision of EU law or a provision of national law compatible therewith directly requires that that substance be added to a foodstuff in order for that foodstuff to be placed on the market. The use of such a substance is not legally required within the meaning of that provision where a foodstuff is marketed as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use, although that implies that, in order to comply with the provisions governing the incorporation of substances into foodstuffs, included in:

               —

               Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;

               —

               Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods and Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health; and

               —

               Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and Commission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 of 13 October 2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses;
               that foodstuff must contain a determined quantity of the substance in question.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 June 1996 in Case T-118/95: Miguel Anacoreta Correia v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment procedure - Grade A 1 post)

text:
No C 210/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             post of Deputy Director-General of Directorate-General I A
                       of 11 June 1996                               ( External Political Relations ) and, second, for annulment of
                                                                     the appointment of Mr B. to that post — the Court of First
in Case T-111/94: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff v.                       Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
        Commission of the European Communities ( l )                 President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio
(Officials — Transfer ofpart ofan official's emoluments in           Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
the currency of a Member State other than the country in             judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which it:
     which the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
                          ( 96/C 210/34 )
                                                                     1 , dismisses the action;
              (Language of tbe case: Spanish)
                                                                     2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-111 /94 : Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, an official
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and
Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Amparo Alcover San Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
Carlos Gômez de la Cruz ) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision rejecting the complaint
concerning the transfer of part of the applicant's
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
emoluments to a home-purchase savings account in Danish
crowns , second, for a declaration recognizing the                                          of 11 June 1996
applicant's entitlement to such a transfer and, third,               in Case T-147/95 : Geneviève Pavan v. European
damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),                                       Parliament ( 1 )
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A.            (Officiais — Household allowance — Allowance paid from
Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     another source — Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which
it :                                                                                96/C 210/36 )
1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                           (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      In Case T-147/95 : Geneviève Pavan, an official of the
                                                                     European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
(>) O ] No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert
                                                                     1er, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and
                                                                    Jannis Pantalis, assisted by Alex Bonn ) — application for
                                                                     annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of
                                                                     29 September 1994 concerning the recovery from the
                                                                     applicant of the sum of LFR 489 063 'representing the
                                                                     household allowance paid from another source from 1 June
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1987' — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
                       of 11 June 1996                               composed of: C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A.
in Case T-118/95 : Miguel Anacoreta Correia v.                       Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
        Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which
                                                                     it :
  (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Grade A 1 post)
                          ( 96/C 210/35 )
                                                                     1 , annuls the decision of the European Parliament of
                                                                          29 September 1994 concerning the recovery from the
               (Language of the case: French)                             applicant of the sum of LFR 489 063 'representing the
                                                                          household allowance paid from another source from
In Case T-118/95 : Miguel Anacoreta Correia , an official of              1 June 1987';
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the                2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SÀRL, 1 rue Glesener, v .
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                    (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall , assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision rejecting the application of the applicant for the


title: Case C-1/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länssratten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen) — Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket (Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Directive 73/148/EEC — National of one Member State established in another Member State — Right to residence of a spouse's parent, the spouse and the parent being nationals of a non-Member country — Requirement that the parent be lawfully resident in a Member State when joining his family in the Member State of establishment — Evidence required to show that the parent is a dependant)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länssratten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen) — Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-1/05) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Directive 73/148/EEC - National of one Member State established in another Member State - Right to residence of a spouse's parent, the spouse and the parent being nationals of a non-Member country - Requirement that the parent be lawfully resident in a Member State when joining his family in the Member State of establishment - Evidence required to show that the parent is a dependant)
   (2007/C 42/04)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Länsrätten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yunying Jia

      Defendant: Migrationsverket
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Utlänningsnämnden (Alien Appeals Board) (Sweden) — Interpretation of Article 43 EC, Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2) and Articles 1(d) and 6(b) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14) — Right to residence of a parent of a spouse, both holding the nationality of a non-Member State, of a national of a Member State resident in another Member State who is dependent on that citizen — Requirement for that parent to reside lawfully in a Member State when joining his family — Evidence required to show that the parent is a dependent
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Having regard to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607, Community law does not require Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member State, who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the condition that those family members have previously been residing lawfully in another Member State;

               2.

               Article 1(1)(d) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services is to be interpreted to the effect that ‘dependent on them’ means that members of the family of a Community national established in another Member State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material support of that Community national or his or her spouse in order to meet their essential needs in the State of origin of those family members or the State from which they have come at the time when they apply to join that Community national. Article 6(b) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that proof of the need for material support may be adduced by any appropriate means, while a mere undertaking from the Community national or his or her spouse to support the family members concerned need not be regarded as establishing the existence of the family members' situation of real dependence.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case C-377/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/3

         Action brought on 6 August 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-377/12)
   2012/C 319/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, S. Bartelt, F. Erlbacher, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Council of 14 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part (2012/272/EU) (1) insofar as the Council has added the legal bases relating to transport (Articles 91 and 100 TFEU), readmission (Article 79(3) TFEU) and environment (Article 191(4) TFEU);

               —

               maintain the effects of the contested decision;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By way of the present application the Commission seeks the annulment of the Decision of the Council on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part of 14 May 2012 (2012/272/EU) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the contested decision’), insofar as the Council has added the legal bases relating to transport (Articles 91 and 100 TFEU), readmission (Article 79(3) TFEU) and environment (Article 191(4) TFEU).
   This application is based on a single plea of law, namely that the Council has violated the rules of the Treaties and the case-law of the Court in relation to the choice of the legal basis for the adoption of a Union measure, including a decision on the signature of an international agreement.
   The Commission takes the view that the addition of the above mentioned legal bases was unnecessary and illegal. Indeed, the provisions of the PCA which have triggered the addition of these legal bases by the Council relate to cooperation on specific policy matters which form an integral part of the development cooperation policy of the EU and do not impose extensive obligations distinct from those of development cooperation. Therefore, all these provisions of the PCA are covered by Article 209 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 3


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-230/00: Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Turnover — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
C 213/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras,                   1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Archer Daniels Midland
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen,                       Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd jointly
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on, in                      and severally at EUR 43 875 000;
which it:
                                                                            2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                            3.     Orders Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels
2.     Orders Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe                     Midland Ingredients Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay
       GmbH to bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay             three quarters of the Commission’s costs and orders the
       those incurred by the Commission.                                           Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 316 of 04.11.2000.                                                (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 9 July 2003
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
in Case T-224/00: Archer Daniels Midland Company and
Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                              in Case T-230/00: Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe
                                                                              GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and                       (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
duration of the infringement — Turnover — Aggravating                       method of setting fines — Turnover — Mitigating circum-
circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation                      stances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
during the administrative procedure — Concurrent sanc-
                                 tions)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/54)
                           (2003/C 213/53)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-230/00, Daesang Corp., established in Seoul (South
In Case T-224/00, Archer Daniels Midland Company, estab-                    Korea), Sewon Europe GmbH, established in Eschborn
lished in Decatur, Illinois (United States of America), Archer              (Germany), represented by J.-F. Bellis and S. Reinart, lawyers,
Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd, established in Erith (United               and A. Kmiecik, solicitor, with an address for service in
Kingdom), represented by L. Martin Alegi and E.W. Batchelor,                Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                    (Agents: W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for a
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils,                    reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission
R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for partial annulment of                 Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding
Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating                     pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and                 EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 —                      2001 L 152, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Amino Acids) (OJ 2001 L 152, p. 24) or a reduction in the                   Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
fine imposed on the applicants, and counterclaim by the                     P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Commission for an increase in the amount of that fine, the                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Daesang Corp. and
on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                       Sewon Europe GmbH jointly and severally at EUR 7 128 240;
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/29
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                            J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: D. Christensen,
                                                                            Administrator, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003, in which
3.     Orders Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe GmbH to bear their
                                                                            it:
       own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay two thirds of the
       Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to bear one
       third of its own costs.                                              1.     Declared the application to be inadmissible in so far as it seeks
                                                                                annulment of Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of 14 September
                                                                                2000;
( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                            2.     Declared the application to be admissible but unfounded in so
                                                                                far as it seeks annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045 of
                                                                                5 September 2000;
                                                                            3.     Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay
                                                                                those incurred by the Commission and by Salzgitter and
                                                                                Mannesmann.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ No C 61 of 24.2.01.
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                             of 8 July 2003
in Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
(Control of concentrations — Concentration covered partly
by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty — Decision
                                                                            in Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou v Commission of the
to authorise on the basis of Article 66(2) CS — Decision
                                                                                European Communities (1)
declaring compatibility with the common market on the basis
of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 —
Conditions for admissibility under the ECSC Treaty and the                  (Officials — Repayment of mission expenses — Business
EC Treaty — Relationship between the rules on control of                                               class air travel)
concentrations laid down in the ECSC Treaty and the EC
   Treaty — Duty to state reasons — Erroneous assessment)                                             (2003/C 213/56)
                           (2003/C 213/55)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou, an official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
In Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV, estab-
lished in Düsseldorf (Germany), Eisen- und Metallwerke                      H. Tserepa-Lacombe), — application for annulment of the
                                                                            Commission’s decision of 24 March 2000 making three
Ferndorf GmbH, established in Kreuztal-Ferndorf (Germany),
Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG, established in Siegen                         ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts and
                                                                            charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed and, in
(Germany), represented by H. Hellmann, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                            addition, a request that the Commission should be ordered to
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
W. Wils), supported by Mannesmann AG, established in                        repay to the applicant the amounts deducted from his
                                                                            remuneration by way of sums overclaimed, — the Court of
Düsseldorf, represented by K. Moosecker and P. Niggemann,
                                                                            First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
lawyers, and by Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter
                                                                            dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers
                                                                            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
— application for annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045
of 5 September 2000 and Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of                          9 July 2003, in which it:
14 September 2000, by which the Commission authorised, on
the basis of, respectively, Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)             1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2003 making
No 4064/89 and Article 66(2) CS, the acquisition by Salzgitter                     three ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts
of control of Mannesmannröhren-Werke — the Court of First                          and charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed inasmuch


title: Case T-301/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission
   (Case T-301/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))
   (2014/C 431/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-92/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente ‘s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 5(7)(a) — Taxable transactions — ‘Supplies made for consideration’  — First occupation by a municipal authority of premises built for it on land belonging to it — Activities engaged in as a public authority and as a taxable person)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente ‘s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-92/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 5(7)(a) - Taxable transactions - ‘Supplies made for consideration’ - First occupation by a municipal authority of premises built for it on land belonging to it - Activities engaged in as a public authority and as a taxable person))
   2014/C 409/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gemeente ‘s-Hertogenbosch

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a municipality takes first occupation of a building which it has had built on its own land and of which it intends to use 94 % of the area for its activities as a public authority and 6 % of that area for its activities as a taxable person, including 1 % for exempt activities in respect of which no right to deduct value added tax exists. However, the subsequent use of the building for the activities of the municipality may give rise to a right to deduct the tax paid in respect of the application provided for by that provision only in the proportion corresponding to its use for the purposes of the taxable transactions, pursuant to Article 17(5) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-310/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA
   (Case C-310/15)
   (2015/C 294/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vincent Deroo-Blanquart

      Defendant: Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes a misleading unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer of the computer has, via its retailer, provided information on each item of pre-installed software, but has not specified the cost of each individual component?

               2.

               Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer leaves the consumer no choice other than to accept the software or cancel the sale?

               3.

               Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the consumer is unable to obtain a computer which is not equipped with software from the computer manufacturer?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-192/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 212/ 19
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of                          References for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                       Administratif du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg (First
                              of Germany                                    Chamber) by judgments of that court of 7 May 1997 in
                          ( Case C-192/97)
                                                                            the cases of Manuel de Castro Freitas and Raymond
                                                                            Escallier against the Minister for Small Businesses and
                            ( 97/C 212/34 )                                                                     Tourism
                                                                                ( Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/35 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                                                            Administratif du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg ( First
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                            Chamber ) ( Administrative Tribunal of the Grand Duchy
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                        of Luxembourg ( First Chamber)) of 7 May 1997, received
also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                            at the Court Registry on 21 May 1997, for preliminary
Kirchberg.                                                                  rulings in the cases of Manuel de Castro Freitas and
                                                                            Raymond Escallier against the Minister for Small
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Businesses and Tourism on the following questions:
                                                                             1 . Does the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council
                                                                                Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down
 1 . declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
                                                                                detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in
      its obligations under Council Directive 82/501/EEC of
                                                                                respect of activities of self-employed persons in
      24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain
                                                                                manufacturing and processing industries falling within
      industrial activities H, and in particular of Article 1
                                                                                ISIC Major Groups 23 to 40 ( Industry and small craft
      thereof in conjunction with Annexes I and III thereto,
      in that :
                                                                                industries ) ( l ), which refers to the taking up ' or pursuit
                                                                                of any activity referred to in Article 1 ( 2 )' ( Tune des
                                                                                activites mentionnees a Particle premier paragraphe 2 ,
      — it failed fully to adopt the concept of 'major                             ou l'exercice de celles-ci ') and to 'the fact that the
           accidents' in national law, since persons who are                       activity in question has been pursued' (' l'exercice
           under a duty to prevent occurrences or to deal                          effectif... de l'activite consideree'), cover the
           with their consequences are excluded from the                           situation where a Community national has pursued
           category of persons affected by a serious danger,                       simultaneously in the Member State whence he comes
                                                                                more than one activity falling within the scope of this
                                                                                Directive and applies to establish his business in
      — it failed fully to adopt the concept of ' industrial
                                                                                another Member State, continuing the simultaneous
           activity' in national law, since the handling of
                                                                                pursuit of those activities ( Case C-193/97 ) or trades
           chemicals is covered only if a chemical
           transformation takes place,                                             ( Case C-194/97), having regard, in particular, to
                                                                                the principle of the freedom of establishment laid
                                                                                down in Article 52 of the Treaty, now amended, of
      — in relation to nitrous oxide, it set a threshold level                      17 April 1957 establishing the European Economic
           incompatible with Annex III to the Directive,                           Community ?
                                                                             2 . If so, is the period of experience required by Article 3
      — it failed to include the substance referred to in
                                                                                ( a ) altered in respect of all or some of the activities
           No 175 of Annex III to the Directive within the
                                                                                concerned owing to the fact that they were pursued
           scope of the national provisions;                                        simultaneously ?
                                                                             3 . Does the fact that the activities in question are closely
 2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                               connected, or even unconnected, have any relevance ?
       costs .
                                                                              (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1963—64, p. 148 .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
  those in Case C-l 86/97 ( 2). The period for implementation                 Action brought on 20 May 1997 by the Commission of
  expired on 8 January 1984 .                                                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-195/97)
  (') OJ No L 230 , 5 . 8 . 1982 , p. 1 , as last amended by Directive                                       ( 97/C 212/36 )
      91 /692/EEC ( OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 48 ).
  (2) See page 16 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                              20 May 1997 by the Commission of the European


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-87/92: BVBA Kruidvat v. Commission of the European Communities (Selective distribution system - Luxury cosmetic products)

text:
8 . 2 . 97             I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 40/ 17
( Netherlands ), represented initially by Martijn van Empel ,            Parfumerie, established in Paris, represented by Robert
subsequently by Onno W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar,                   Collin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10
Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe — application                   Rue Mathias Hardt, Comité de Liaison des Syndicats Eu
for the partial annulment of Commission Decision                         ropéens de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques,
91 /50/EEC of 16 January 1991 relating to a proceeding                   established in Brussels, represented by Stephen Kon , Solici
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [ IV/32.732 —                         tor, and Melanie Thill-Tayara , of the Paris Bar, with an
IJsselcentrale { IJC ) and Others , OJ No L 28 , 2 . 2 . 1991 ,          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wi
p. 32 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber, Extended                           nandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich , and Federa
Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President, B.                  tion Européenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants , established in
Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.                      Paris , represented by Rolland Verniau , of the Lyon Bar,
Potocki , Judges; Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez, gave a                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
judgment on 12 December 1996 , the operative part of                     Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve
which is as follows :                                                    — application for annulment of Commission Decision
                                                                         92/33/EEC of 16 December 1991 relating to a proceeding
1 . Commission Decision 91 /50/EEC of 16 January 1991                    under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/33.242 — Yves
      relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC               Saint Laurent Parfums ) ( OJ No L 12 , 18 . 1 . 1992 , p. 24 )
       Treaty (JV/32.732 — IJsselcentrale (1JC) and Others)              — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
      is annulled in so far as it rejects the applicants '               Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and
       complaint with regard to the import restrictions                  B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.
      applicable      during       the    period     before     the      Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
       Elektriciteitswet 1989 entered into force.                        the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
                                                                         which it :
2 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and
      jointly and severally to pay half of the costs incurred            1 . annuls        Commission Decision         92/33/EEC of
       by the Commission and the intervener before the                         16 December 1991 relating to a proceeding under
      judgment of the Court of First Instance of                              Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.242 — Yves Saint
       18 November 1992 , the defendant and the intervener                     Laurent Parfums) in so far as it decides that a
       each being ordered to bear the other half of their                     provision allowing Yves Saint Laurent to treat
       costs .                                                                retailers ' applications less favourably merely because
                                                                              perfumery represents a minority of their activities is
3 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs incurred                       not covered by Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty;
       after the judgment of the Court of Justice, with the
       exception of the intervener s costs, which shall be               2 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
       borne by the intervener.
                                                                         3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the
 (') OJ No C 101 , 18 . 4 . 1991 .                                             Commission and of the intervener Yves Saint Laurent
                                                                               Parfums SA , and to bear its own costs;
                                                                         4 , orders each of the other interveners , the Fédération
                                                                               des Industries de la Parfumerie, the Comité de Liaison
                                                                               des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     rie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Européenne
                        of 12 December 1996                                    des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own costs.
 in Case T-19/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      (') OJ No C 90 , 10 . 4 . 1992 .
 (Selective     distribution     system —      Luxury     cosmetic
                                products)
                             ( 97/C 40/43 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
 In Case T-19/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc,
 established in Paris, represented by Mario Amadio and                    in Case T-87/92 : BVBA Kruidvat v. Commission of the
  Gilbert Parléani, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                                     European Communities (')
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Hoss,                  (Selective     distribution      system —  Luxury     cosmetic
  15 Cote d'Eich , against Commission of the European                                                    products)
  Communities ( Agents : initially Bernd Langeheine, then
  Berend Jan Drijber and Hervé Lehman ), supported by                                                 ( 97/C 40/44 )
  Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA, established in Neuilly-sur-
  Seine, France , represented by Dominique Voillemot and                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
  Arnaud Michel , of the Paris Bar, with an address for
  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                        In Case T-87/92 : BVBA Kruidvat, established in Antwerp,
  Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe, Federation des Industries de la                 Belgium, represented by Onno Willem Brouwer, of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/ 18         |_EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
Amsterdam Bar, during the written procedure, by Yves                 Gilbert Parléani , of the Paris Bar, with an address for
van Gerven, of the Brussels Bar, and, during the oral                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Hoss,
procedure, by Bernt Hugenholtz, of the Amsterdam Bar,                15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of the European
and Frederic Louis and Peter Wytinck, both of the                    Communities (Agents: initially Bernd Langeheine, then
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           Berend Jan Drijber and Hervé Lehman ), supported by
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Goethe, against                   Parfums Givenchy SA, established in Levallois-Perret,
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Berend                France, represented by Francois Bizet, of the Paris Bar,
Jan Drijber ), supported by Parfums Givenchy SA,                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
established in Levallois-Perret, France, represented by              Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, Federation des
Francois Bizet, of the Paris Bar, and Aloyse May, of the             Industries de la Parfumerie, established in Paris,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       represented by Robert Collin, of the Paris Bar, with an
Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 31 Grand-Rue,              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Comité de Liaison des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie             Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Comité de Liai
de la Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques, established in                  son des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
Brussels, represented by Stephen Kon, Solicitor, and                 rie et des Cosmétiques, established in Brussels, represented
Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            by Stephen Kon , Solicitor, and Melanie Thill-Tayara, of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wylander and                the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at
Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich, and Federation Euro                 the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston
péenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants, established in Paris,             Diderich, and Federation Européenne des Parfumeurs Dé
represented by Rolland Verniau, of the Lyon Bar, with an             taillants, established in Paris, represented by Rolland
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Verniau , of the Lyon Bar, with an address for service in
Nico Schaeffer, 12 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve —                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12
application for annulment of Commission Decision 92/                 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve — application for annulment of
428/EEC of 24 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under               Commission Decision 92/428/EEC of 24 July 1992
Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case No IV/33.542 —                   relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC
Parfums Givenchy system of selective distribution ) ( OJ No          Treaty ( Case No IV/33.542 — Parfums Givenchy system
L 236 , 19 . 8 . 1992, p. 11 ) — the Court of First Instance         of selective distribution ) ( OJ No L 236 , 19 . 8 . 1992, p. 11 )
( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of                — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy,           Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and
A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; Registrar: J.              B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on                  Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
 12 December 1996 , in which it:                                     the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
 I . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the                      1 . annuls Commission Decision 92/428/EEC of 24 July
     Commission and of the intervener Parfums Givenchy                     I 992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the
     SA, and to bear its own costs;                                        EEC Treaty (Case No IV/33.542 — Parfums Givenchy
                                                                           system of selective distribution) in so far as it decides
 3 , orders each of the other interveners, the Comité de                   that a provision allowing Givenchy to treat retailers '
     Liaison des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la                  applications less favourably merely because perfumery
     Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Eu                  represents a minority of their activities is not covered
     ropéenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own                  by Article 85 (1 ) of the Treaty;
     costs .
 O OJ No C 331 , 16 . 12 . 1992 .                                     2 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                      3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the
                                                                           Commission and of the intervener Parfums Givenchy
                                                                           SA , and to bear its own costs;
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 12 December 1996
 in Case T-88/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v.              4 , orders each of the other interveners, the Fédération
        Commission of the European Communities (')                         des Industries de la Parfumerie, the Comité de Liaison
 (Selective   distribution     system —    Luxury      cosmetic            des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
                              products)                                     rie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Européenne
                                                                            des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own costs.
                           ( 97/C 40/45 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 307, 25 . 11 . 1992 .
 In Case T-88/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc,
 established in Paris, represented by Mario Amadio and


title: Case T-262/13: Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Skysoft Computersysteme/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYSOFT)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/43

         Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Skysoft Computersysteme/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYSOFT)
   (Case T-262/13)
   2013/C 207/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2013, as it dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision of the OHIM Opposition Division of 30 September 2011 and did not reject the opposition of the intervening party;

               —

               Order the intervening party to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred during the course of the appeal proceedings.

               —

               Request the defendant to produce the annexes submitted by the intervening party and the plaintiff within the framework of the opposition proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYSOFT’ — Community trade mark application No 4 782 645 for products and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38 and 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-499/07: Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Republic of Bulgaria v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/50

         Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Republic of Bulgaria v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-499/07)
   (2008/C 64/82)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   Parties

      Applicant): Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: Anani Anaviev, Daniela Drambozova and Elina Petranova)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               on the basis of Article 230 EC, to annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(2007) 5255 final of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the period from 2008 to 2012 for the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances, which was adopted by Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
               alternatively,

               —

               on the basis of Article 230 EC, to annul Commission Decision C(2007) 5255 final of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the period from 2008 to 2012 for the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances, which was adopted by Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to the extent that that decision specifies the total number of allowances to be allocated,

               —

               to order the Commission of the European Communities to bear the costs incurred by the Republic of Bulgaria in connection with the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the contested Commission Decision C(2007) 5255 final of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the period from 2008 to 2012 for the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances should be annulled in whole or in part for the following reasons:
   Substantial procedural irregularities
   The Commission rejected the Bulgarian national allocation plan, without providing adequate reasons for doing so, on the basis that the plan failed to satisfy criteria 1, 2, 3 and 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC (1). In so doing, it infringed Article 253 EC.
   The contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period laid down in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.
   Prior to the adoption of the decision, the Commission did not give Bulgaria the opportunity to present its objections to the national allocation plan being assessed on the basis of the latest version of the PRIMES model. In so doing, it infringed the right to a fair hearing.
   Infringement of the EC Treaty or of a rule of law relating to its application
   Article 9(1) and (3), together with Article 11(1), of Directive 2003/87/EC provides for the Member States to have sole competence to determine the total quantity of emissions allowances. The Commission is to monitor the application of the criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive, but is, however, not entitled to determine the total quantity of the allowances without reference to the national allocation plan produced by the Member States. The Commission exceeded its powers of review under the directive, since it substituted for the methodology adopted by Bulgaria, which satisfied the criteria laid down in Annex III, a methodology which was unsuited to assessing the Bulgarian economy and failed to comply with some of the criteria.
   The Commission assessed the Bulgarian national allocation plan on the basis of the latest version of the PRIMES model, the data for which were made available to Bulgaria only after the adoption of the contested decision. The Commission accordingly infringed the principle of loyal cooperation.
   In assessing the national allocation plan under the PRIMES model, the Commission did not investigate the Bulgarian national allocation plan with reference to the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC. In applying the PRIMES model to the assessment of the Bulgarian national allocation plan, the Commission wrongly concluded that the plan was incompatible with criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Annex III to the directive. The rejection of the plan and the reduction of the total quantity of allowances to be allocated by 37 % has led to a position where Bulgarian operators of installations are not put in the same position as other operators in the Community's trading system. The Commission accordingly infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
   Having regard to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-374/04, the Commission infringed the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, since it did not apply the instruments adopted by it pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC to their full extent in assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations was infringed because the Bulgarian national allocation plan was assessed by reference to the latest version of the PRIMES model, the data for which were made available to Bulgaria only after the adoption of the contested decision.
   The principle of legal certainty was infringed because the Commission had recourse to a private document when assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan.
   The principle of sound administration was infringed because, in assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan in relation to its compatibility with criteria 1, 2, and 3 laid down in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission did not attentively and objectively investigate all relevant economic and ecological factors.
   The Commission unlawfully applied the instruments which it adopted pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC in assessing the Bulgarian national allocation plan. In so doing, it infringed criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/78/EC.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Volkswagen AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-62/98)

text:
C 184/14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.6.98
suffered by him, since he considers that he has adequately          According to the contested decision, the above system
demonstrated the service-related fault and the causal link          contains provisions which involve discrimination on the
between that fault and the damage suffered by him.                  grounds of nationality, conflict with the principle of
                                                                    freedom of establishment and constitute aid to encourage
                                                                    investment in ships in a way which is liable to infringe
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.97, p. 25.
                                                                    Community rules and grants aid for the leasing of ships,
                                                                    which constitutes operating aid of the type not allowed by
                                                                    Community guidelines.
                                                                    In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Sardegna Lines Ð
Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA against the                    Ð infringement of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of
         Commission of the European Communities                         21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (1), which
                                                                        forms part of a system of incentives in the industry
                        (Case T-58/98)
                                                                        which has not been taken into consideration at all in
                         (98/C 184/25)                                  the procedure in question;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Ð error of assessment and misuse of power in that the
                                                                        legal and factual elements used to support the
                                                                        contested decision are absent. In this respect, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission made an error of assessment with regard
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       to the alleged substantial amendments which Law 11/
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998                    1988 made to Law 20/1951, which led the
by Sardegna Lines Ð Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna                    Commission to characterize the system of regional
SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, Ugo Iaccarino,                    incentives at issue as new aid' and to consider it
Beniamino Carnevale and Claudia Caruso, of the Naples                   subject to the obligation to give prior notice pursuant
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   to Article 93(3) of the Treaty;
Chambers of Francesco Caruso, 2A Rue Van Moer,
Brussels.
                                                                    Ð infringement and erroneous application of Article 92(1)
                                                                        of the Treaty inasmuch as trade between the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             States is not affected and competition is not distorted;
                                                                    Ð that the conditions for the application of
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October                      Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty are met in that
    1997 concerning aid granted by the Region of Sardinia               Sardinia is an underdeveloped Italian region, and the
    (Italy) to shipping companies in Sardinia (OJ L 20 of               defendant should have taken account of the isolation
    27.1.1998, p. 30);                                                  and remoteness of the region;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Ð breach of essential procedural requirements inasmuch
                                                                        as the statement of reasons for the decision is
                                                                        inadequate.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    (1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990, p. 27.
The applicant contests the Commission's decision of
21 October 1997 inasmuch as it considers a system of aid
granted by the region of Sardinia to shipping line to be
unlawful.
                                                                    Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Volkswagen AG
The allegedly unlawful aid was introduced by Sardinian
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Regional Law No 20 of 15 May 1951 which established a
fund at the Credito Industriale del Banco di Sardegna for                                   (Case T-62/98)
the grant of loans to shipping companies intending to
                                                                                (98/C 184/26)
build, purchase, convert or repair vessels. The grant of
such loans was subject to the condition that the
beneficiary undertaking had its head office, country of                            (Language of the case: German)
domicile for tax purposes and port of register in the
region of Sardinia. A number of amendments, which the
applicant claims were substantial, were made to that                An action against the Commission of the European
system of aid subsequently by Regional Law No 11/98.                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/15
Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 1998               To the extent that Italian authorised dealers had their
by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by               dealerships terminated, or were threatened with
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service         termination, in connection with re-exports, this took place
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11             exclusively on account of irregular supplies in breach of
Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                            the dealership contract to unauthorised resellers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant's conduct was maintained within the
                                                                   bounds of the block exemption Regulations (EEC) No
                                                                   123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95. The exemption in respect
Ð annul the Commission's decision (IV/35.733-VW) of                of the applicant's distribution system was still valid.
    28 January 1998, in accordance with the first
    paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                   The applicant maintains it is wholly inaccurate to suggest
                                                                   that the alleged infringements began as early as 1987 and
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           continued after October 1995. The documents referred to
                                                                   by the Commission could relate only to the years 1993 to
                                                                   1995.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Finally, the applicant maintains that the conditions for a
In the contested decision, the Commission accused                  fine are not met. Even assuming the Commission's
Volkswagen, together with its subsidiaries Audi AG and             findings to be correct, the fine of ECU 102 000 000 would
Autogerma S.p.A., of infringements of Article 85(1) of the         be excessive.
EC Treaty, in that it concluded agreements with the Italian
dealers in the distribution network in order to prevent or
restrict sales to end users from other Member States acting
either in person or through an agent and to authorised
dealers in the distribution network established in other
Member States.
                                                                   Action brought on 16 April 1998 by Transpo Maastricht
Volkswagen was required, inter alia, to desist immediately         B.V. and Marco Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, versus
from the infringements of which it was accused and, on                      Commission of the European Communities
account of their seriousness, to pay a fine of ECU                                        (Case T-63/98)
102 000 000.
                                                                                (98/C 184/27)
In the applicant's view, the Commission breached its duty
to act fairly both in the proceeding and on the merits. The                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
proceeding was not carried out in an objective and
impartial manner. The applicant's exhaustive and
substantiated objections to the heads of complaint were to         An action against the Commission of the European
a large extent completely ignored, and the evidence was            Communities was brought before the Court of First
assessed in a one-sided and prejudiced manner.                     Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1998
                                                                   by Transpo Maastricht B.V., Maastricht, and Marco
                                                                   Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, Terneuzen, represented by J.
The Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty              van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
by failing to state reasons for the decision in the proper         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
manner. The evidence did not even prove individual                 34a, Rue Philippe II.
measures by the applicant against legitimate re-exports
from Italy to Germany and Austria, let alone the alleged
overall strategy. The applicant had merely tried to prevent
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
irregular re-exports through sales to unauthorised
resellers. That was not only legally permissible, but
actually required.
                                                                   1. annul the decision, contained in the Commission's
                                                                       letter of 13 February 1998, to reject the applicants'
The Volkswagen subsidiary Autogerma had not agreed or                  request for an exemption under Article 8(3)(c) of
practised any splitting of profit margins, whereby sales by            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 (1), and grant
dealers outside its area were placed at a disadvantage. To             the exemption requested;
the extent that the differentiation in bonuses according to
the residence of the end purchaser, as alleged by the
Commission, was agreed and practised, it was permissible.          2. order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-248/12: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2015  — Fuhr v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/24

         Order of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — Fuhr v Commission
   (Case T-248/12) (1)

   (2015/C 096/30)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.