title: Case C-77/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Council of the European Union

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/25

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-77/05)
   (2005/C 82/50)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Elizabeth O'Neill, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (1);

               2.

               determine, pursuant to Article 233 EC, that, following the annulment of the Border Agency Regulation, and pending the adoption of new legislation in this matter, the provisions of the Border Agency Regulation should remain effective, except in so far as they have the effect of excluding the United Kingdom from participating in the application of the Border Agency Regulation;

               3.

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The United Kingdom was denied the right to take part in the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (
         the Border Agency Regulation
      ), despite having given notice of its wish to do so pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union (
         the Schengen Protocol
      ) and to Article 3(1) of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland. The annulment of the Border Agency Regulation is sought on the grounds that the exclusion of the United Kingdom from its adoption entails the infringement of an essential procedural requirement and/or the infringement of the Treaty, within the meaning of Article 230, second paragraph, EC.
   The main contention of the United Kingdom is that, in so excluding it from the adoption of the Border Agency Regulation, the Council acted on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the relationship between Article 5 and Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol. It is contended more particularly as follows:

               (a)

               The Council's interpretation, according to which the right of participation conferred by Article 5 of the Schengen Protocol applies only to measures building on provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom particpates pursuant to a Council decision adopted on the basis of Article 4, is contradicted by the structure and language of those Articles, by the very nature of the Article 5 mechanism, and by the Declaration on Article 5 that was annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

               (b)

               The Council's interpretation of the Schengen Protocol is not required to enable the ‘without prejudice’ rule in Article 7 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland to have useful effect. Nor is such an intepretation required to preserve the integrity of the Schengen acquis. Indeed, as a means of safeguarding the acquis, its adverse impact on the United Kingdom would be grossly disproportionate.

               (c)

               Given the broad and loose conception of measures building on the Schengen acquis which the Council employs in its practice, the mechanism of Article 5 of the Schengen Protocol, as interpreted by the Council, would be liable to function in a way that violates the principle of legal certainty and the fundamental principles governing enhanced cooperation.

         In the alternative, the United Kingdom contends that, if the Council's interpretation of the relationship between Article 5 and Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol were correct, this would necessarily entail taking a narrow view of the notion of a measure that builds upon the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 5, as a measure inextricably connected with the acquis; and the Border Agency Regulation is not such a measure.

      (1)  OJ L 349, p. 1.


title: Case C-27/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — French Republic v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Common Position 2001/931/CFSC — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Freezing of funds applicable to a group included in a list drawn up, revised and amended by the Council of the European Union — Rights of the defence)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — French Republic v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-27/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Common Position 2001/931/CFSC - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Freezing of funds applicable to a group included in a list drawn up, revised and amended by the Council of the European Union - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 49/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard and by G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, avocat, D. Vaughan QC and M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister), Council of the European Union, European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 4 December 2008 of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union annulling, so far as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran is concerned, Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case F-16/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — de Britto Patrício-Dias v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Reports — Career Development Report — 2007 Assessment procedure — Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Assessment of productivity based on part of the reference period)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/77

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — de Britto Patrício-Dias v Commission
   (Case F-16/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Reports - Career Development Report - 2007 Assessment procedure - Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Assessment of productivity based on part of the reference period)
   2010/C 24/144
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jorge de Britto Patrício-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s complaint against the decision concerning his assessment during the year 2007.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr de Britto Patrício-Dias to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009, p. 41.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Removal from the register of Case C-458/02 (1)

   (2005/C 143/47)

      (Language of the case: English)

   By order of 22 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-458/02 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.


title: Case C-582/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2014  — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2014 — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-582/14)
   (2015/C 089/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Patrick Breyer

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1) — the Data Protection Directive — be interpreted as meaning that an Internet Protocol address (IP address) which a service provider stores when his website is accessed already constitutes personal data for the service provider if a third party (an access provider) has the additional knowledge required in order to identify the data subject?

               2.

               Does Article 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive preclude a provision in national law under which a service provider may collect and use a user’s personal data without his consent only to the extent necessary in order to facilitate, and charge for, the specific use of the telemedium by the user concerned, and under which the purpose of ensuring the general operability of the telemedium cannot justify use of the data beyond the end of the particular use of the telemedium?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case T-750/15: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Renewable energy — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German Law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2014) — Aid supporting electricity from renewable sources and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/20

         Order of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
   (Case T-750/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - State aid - Renewable energy - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German Law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2014) - Aid supporting electricity from renewable sources and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 410/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany) and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG (Cottbus, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Hermann and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5081 final of 23 July 2014 concerning State aid scheme SA. 38632 (2014/N) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany (EEG 2014 — Reform of the Renewable Energy Law).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH, RWE Power AG and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-255/06 P: Order of the Court of 5 July 2007 — Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — International agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey — Compensatory financial aid)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/19

         Order of the Court of 5 July 2007 — Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-255/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey - Compensatory financial aid)
   (2007/C 297/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ (represented by: R. Sinner, Lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03 Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed, as being unfounded, an action seeking to recover compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent institutions' failure to comply with the obligations laid down in the provisions governing the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey, in particular the obligation to provide financial aid for the purpose of offsetting the negative effects of the Customs Union on the Turkish economy.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-433/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2008 — SIAE v Commission (Application for interim measures — Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/36

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2008 — SIAE v Commission
   (Case T-433/08 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
   (2009/C 32/71)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, M. Mandel, L. Vullo and S. Valentino, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Article 4(2) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-325/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Iliad and Others v Commission (State Aid — Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Altmark judgment — Service of general economic interest — Market failure — Overcompensation)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Iliad and Others v Commission
   (Case T-325/10) (1)

   (State Aid - Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Altmark judgment - Service of general economic interest - Market failure - Overcompensation)
   2013/C 336/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Iliad (Paris, France); Free infrastructure (Paris); and Free (Paris) (represented by: T. Cabot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents); the Republic of Poland (represented initally by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, and subsequently by B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); the Hauts-de-Seine department (France) (represented by: J.-D. Bloch and G. O’Mahony, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 concerning the compensation for public service costs for the establishment and operation of a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department (State Aid N 331/2008 — France).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Iliad, Free infrastructure and Free to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Hauts-de-Seine department, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-338/08: Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/40

         Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
   (Case T-338/08)
   (2008/C 301/69)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decisions of 1 July 2008 addressed to the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to conduct a substantive examination of the requests for internal review;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants have requested the Commission to review Regulation No 149/2008 (1), in accordance with Title IV of Regulation No 1367/2006 (2). By letters of 1 July 2008 the Commission declared those requests to be inadmissible on the ground that the contested regulation could not be regarded as being an act of individual scope or as being a bundle of decisions.
   In support of their application, the applicants first submit that Regulation No 149/2008 consists of a bundle of decisions. The applicants contend that Regulation No 149/2008 applies to a definitively defined and previously determined group of products and active substances.
   In this connection, the applicants also invoke the content of Regulation No 396/2005 (3). Under Article 6 of that regulation, a separate application for modification may be submitted for each maximum residue level established. This possibility is also granted to civil-society organisations with an interest in health, such as the applicants. A decision on such an application, they contend, must therefore be a decision which specifically relates to a particular product or a particular active substance. The same reasoning ought, in the applicants' view, to be followed in respect of maximum residue levels established by Regulation No 149/2008.
   By way of alternative submission, the applicants contend that Regulation No 149/2008 concerns a decision which comes within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Convention (4). Indeed, according to the applicants, it relates to a decision which is of direct and individual concern to the applicants in a manner which satisfies the requirements of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).

      (4)  Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Declarations (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-79/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Hunting)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-79/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Hunting)
   (2005/C 45/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-79/03: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 21 February 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) and Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing hunting using limed twigs in the Community of Valencia by means of the method known as ‘parany’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case C-283/07: Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/22

         Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-283/07)
   (2007/C 199/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions such as

                           —

                           Article 1(25) to (27) and (29)(a) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004, and

                           —

                           Article 1(29)(b) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 and Articles 183(1)(s) and 229 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006,

                     in accordance with which scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities and high-quality refuse derived fuel (RDF-Q) respectively are immediately removed from the scope of the Italian legislation on waste transposing Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, (2) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission pleads, in the light of the case-law of the Court, that the provisions laid down in Article 1(25) to (27) and (29) of Law No 308 and Articles 183(1)(s) and 229 of Legislative Decree No 152, in accordance with which scrap intended for use in iron and steel activities and high-quality refuse derived fuel (RDF-Q) are systematically and without more excluded from the definition of waste, have the effect of unduly restricting the definition of waste provided for in Directive 75/442 and consequently the scope of that directive, necessarily detrimental to its practical effect. Such provisions are therefore contrary to the directive itself, from which a provision of national law cannot derogate, and which does not provide for any exclusion from its scope for those objects and substances.
   The exclusion from the definition of waste of scrap intended for use in iron and steel activities and of RDF-Q is laid down by the Italian legislature though the unrebuttable presumption that such objects and substances, as defined in the provisions in question, must always be categorised as raw materials. Such provision unavoidably restricts the dynamic and functional definition provided for by the directive. It precludes the existence of ‘waste’ within the meaning of Directive 75/442 from being ‘determined in the light of all of the circumstances’ which ought, case by case, to establish whether there is waste within the meaning of the directive.
   The systematic exclusion of such residual materials from the scope of the directive is not only detrimental to the practical effect of the directive and, in particular, of the system for monitoring waste management introduced by it to protect the environment, but results in precluding those residual materials from the application of all the environmental legislation the scope of which is specifically defined by reference to the definition of waste laid down in the directive. The potential detrimental effects to the environment of such an exclusion therefore go well beyond those deriving from the non-application of the directive alone.

      (1)  OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 47.

      (2)  OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.


title: Case C-53/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Case C-53/13)
   2013/C 141/18
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Ostravě

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Strojírny Prostějov, a.s.

      Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Question referred

   Do Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the application of national legislation which, where an undertaking supplying workers to another undertaking (the supplier) has its seat in the territory of another Member State, imposes on the undertaking using the workers the obligation to deduct income tax in respect of those workers and pay it into the State budget, whereas if the supplier has its seat in the territory of the Czech Republic that obligation is on the supplier?


title: Case T-630/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Strobl v Commission (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Recruitment — Open competition — Candidates whose names are included in a list of suitable candidates prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Grading under the new, less favourable rules — Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Error in law — Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Strobl v Commission
   (Case T-630/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Recruitment - Open competition - Candidates whose names are included in a list of suitable candidates prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Notice of vacancy - Appointment - Grading under the new, less favourable rules - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Error in law - Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)
   2013/C 26/83
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Peter Strobl (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer); and Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-56/05 Strobl v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Peter Strobl to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-232/99: Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Margaret Mary McKenzie Campbell against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 20/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
The application is made on the following grounds:                       the Middle Temple, by Messrs Ferdinard Kelly, 21 Bennets Hill,
                                                                        Birmingham, B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
— The Commission, having resigned en masse, is only author-
    ised to handle current business, which does not include
    the Decision;                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— The Decision was adopted under Regulation No 17 and
    should have been adopted (if adopted at all) under                  — annul the decision of the Commission in Case
    Regulation No 3975/87. This breach of an essential pro-                 IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle dated 16 June
    cedural requirement deprived BA of the procedural safe-                 1999;
    guards to which it was entitled. Moreover, in so far as the
    Decision affects routes between the United Kingdom and              — declare that the Commission is required under Article 233
    third countries, it is outside the powers of the Commission;            of the Treaty establishing the European Communities to
                                                                            take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment
— The Commission acted against BA alone, whereas all                        to be delivered;
    the European Airlines engaged in substantially similar
    practices;
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.
— The requisite nexus between the alleged market in which
    the Commission maintains that the abuse has occurred
    and the markets in which the Commission maintains that
    the harmful effects of such abuse are felt is lacking and           Pleas in law and main arguments
    therefore Article 82 cannot apply;
— The market in air travel agency services cannot be regarded           The applicant states that on 13 January 1998, pursuant to
    as the relevant product market in the present case. BA              Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 the Commission gave
    submits that the appropriate market definition is the route         notice (1) that it intended to take a favourable position in
    or set of routes distributed through the travel agent.              respect of certain agreements notified to the Commission by
    Furthermore, the relevant geographic market is not, as the          Scottish and Newcastle PLC, by granting retroactive exemption
    Commission maintains, the UK, but is broader;                       pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. The agreements in question were
                                                                        the standard forms of leases, the subject of each of the leases
— Even if the relevant market is correctly identified, BA               being a fully fitted-out, on-licensed public house in United
    cannot been considered as being dominant in the market,             Kingdom with a tie for beer. Before taking a final decision on
    because it cannot act independently of its suppliers,               this matter, the Commission invited all interested parties to
    competitors or customers;                                           submit their observations.
— Even if BA were dominant in a properly-defined relevant
    market, its incentive agreements would not constitute an            On 12 March 1999, the applicant submitted observations
    abuse of its dominant position.                                     together with an expert’s report to the Commission. By the
                                                                        said observations objection was made to the proposal to grant
                                                                        Scottish and Newcastle retroactive or any exemption.
                                                                        On 16 June 1999, the Commission took a Decision relating to
                                                                        a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                        IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle) (the contested
                                                                        decision) (2). In its decision the Commission, overriding the
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Margaret Mary                      objections made in the said observations, granted Scottish and
McKenzie Campbell against the Commission of the Euro-                   Newcastle retroactive exemption to the notified agreements
                       pean Communities                                 commencing on 1 January 1985 until 31 December 2002.
                         (Case T-232/99)
                                                                        The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance on
                                                                        the grounds that in granting exemption to the notified
                          (2000/C 20/45)                                agreements the Commission:
                  (Language of the case: English)                       (a) failed properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                            that the notified agreements do not fulfil the conditions of
                                                                            Article 81(3);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Margaret                     (b) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that the
Mary McKenzie Campbell, represented by Becket Bedford, of                   notified agreements fulfil the conditions of Article 81(3);
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/23
(c) failed to properly evaluate the facts and law which establish        Action brought on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
    that the notified agreements do not satisfy the conditions           V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V. against the
    of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 17.                                          Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 8, p. 4.                                                                                (Case T-237/99)
(2) OJ L 186, p. 28.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Monod-                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Gayraud against the Commission of the European Com-                      European Communities on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
                            munities                                     V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V., respectively estab-
                                                                         lished in Rotterdam, Alphen a/d Rijn and Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                         lands), represented by Mr van Empel and Mr Smeets, of the
                        (Case T-234/99)
                                                                         Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                         (2000/C 20/46)
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                              of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Germany and requiring the repayment of State aid granted
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Mo-                        by the Netherlands to 450 service stations;
nod-Gayraud, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by
Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the Paris Bar, and Viviane Ecker, of the         (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Luxembourg Bar, 77 Boulevard Grande Duchesse Charlotte.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing the benefit of                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
    free accommodation;                                                  T-248/99.
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages
    amounting to EUR 91 200;                                             (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action concerns the defendant’s refusal, dated 29 June               Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Esso Nederland
1999, to accept responsibility for payment of the rent for               B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
accommodation used by the applicant, a French civil servant                                             ties
on secondment as an expert to the Commission’s delegation
in Poland.
                                                                                (Case T-242/99)
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the
fact that that decision is contrary to the undertakings pre-                                      (2000/C 20/48)
viously given by the Commission in relation to him.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
He adds that it is not possible to raise against him the argument
that the rent for accommodation cannot be reimbursed to an
official where, as in his case, the accommodation belongs to             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the official’s spouse. He never in fact chose to live in an              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
apartment belonging to his wife; that situation arose as a result        European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Esso Neder-
of the attitude adopted by the Commission.                               land B.V., of The Hague (Netherlands), represented by M.H. van
                                                                         der Woude and R.W. Wezenbeek-Geuke, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         J. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Case C-123/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Deutschland) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Max-Heinz Feilen v Finanzamt Fulda

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Deutschland) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Max-Heinz Feilen v Finanzamt Fulda
   (Case C-123/15)
   (2015/C 213/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Max-Heinz Feilen

      Defendant: Finanzamt Fulda

      Question referred

   Does the free movement of capital under Article 63(1) in conjunction with Article 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State which provides for a reduction in inheritance tax in the case of an inheritance by persons in a particular tax class where the estate includes assets that were already acquired by persons in this tax class during the ten years prior to the acquisition and inheritance tax was assessed in the Member State in respect of this previous acquisition, whereas a tax reduction is excluded where inheritance tax was levied in another Member State in respect of the previous acquisition?


title: Case C-393/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/10

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission
   (Case C-393/13 P)
   2013/C 274/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alumina d.o.o., European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               dismiss the action;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs relating to the appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The Council relies on a sole ground of appeal against the judgment of 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11, by which the General Court annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (1)

   The Council submits that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘sales carried out in the ordinary course of trade’ as used in Article 2(1) and (6) of the Basic Regulation. (2) Specifically, the Council argues that sales may take place ‘in the ordinary course of trade’ even if the seller has increased its sale price by incorporating in that price a premium to cover the risk of non-payment or of late payment.
   According to the Council, the contrary interpretation adopted by the General Court is, in addition, incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case C-35/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley and Cibrian Fernandez v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften (Free movement of capital — Immovable property — Income tax — Deductibility of rental losses from the taxable income of a person liable to tax — Application of the decreasing-balance method of depreciation to the costs of acquisition or construction — More favourable tax treatment confined to immovable property situated on the national territory)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley and Cibrian Fernandez v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
   (Case C-35/08) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Immovable property - Income tax - Deductibility of rental losses from the taxable income of a person liable to tax - Application of the decreasing-balance method of depreciation to the costs of acquisition or construction - More favourable tax treatment confined to immovable property situated on the national territory)
   2009/C 297/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley and Cibrian Fernandez

      Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 56 of the EC Treaty — National income tax legislation limiting the ability to deduct losses arising from the rental of real property to those losses relating to property located on national territory, and reserving to such property alone the application of a more favourable method of depreciation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 EC precludes income-tax legislation of a Member State under which natural persons who are resident and liable to unlimited taxation are entitled to have (i) losses from the letting or leasing of an immovable property deducted from the taxable amount in the year in which those losses arise, and (ii) the income from such property assessed on the basis of the application of the decreasing-balance method of depreciation, only if the property in question is situated on the territory of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.


title: Case T-298/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Erbslöh Aluminium 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 431/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission
   (Case T-298/14 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 431/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH (Velbert, 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 T-541/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2017 — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane v EUIPO (NSU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NSU — Prior national word mark NSU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2017 — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane v EUIPO (NSU)
   (Case T-541/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NSU - Prior national word mark NSU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 256/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: M. Gurrado, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2015 (Case R 2132/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Audi and Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-140/16: Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/37

         Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-140/16)
   (2016/C 191/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (La Trinité-sur-Mer, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 29 January 2016, notified by letter No D 302191 of 5 February 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 320 026,23 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;

               —

               annul the debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 informing the applicant that a debt had been found with respect to him by decision of the General Secretary of 29 January 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the external legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into two parts.

                           —

                           First part, according to which it is the Bureau of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General which has competence with respect to financial decision affecting political parties and, therefore, the Members.

                           —

                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament could not modify the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary General fails to show that the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament delegated powers to him enabling him to adopt and notify the contested measures concerning the regulation of financial questions affecting a Member.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the internal legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into four parts.

                           —

                           First part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

                           —

                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the Parliament failed to adduce any evidence justifying the contested measures.

                           —

                           Third part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by misuse of powers and of procedure.

                           —

                           Fourth part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory.


title: Case C-349/15: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA v Elena Lucaciu, Cristian Laurentiu Lucaciu

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA v Elena Lucaciu, Cristian Laurentiu Lucaciu
   (Case C-349/15) (1)

   (2017/C 112/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 4.9.2015.


title: Case T-509/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/64

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)
   (Case T-509/12)
   2013/C 26/127
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanso Group Oy (Nokia, Finland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 147/2011-4 and reject the opposition; and

               —

               Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEEN VOGUE’, for among others goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 3529476

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registration No 126124 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Swedish trade mark registration No 43934 for the figurative sign ‘Vogue’, for goods in class 25; Finish trade mark application No T 199 803 628 for the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Registered auxiliary trade name ‘VO Gue’

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-552/12 P: Order of the Court of 19 June 2014  — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/26

         Order of the Court of 19 June 2014 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-552/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic))
   2014/C 315/40
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and E. Leftheriotou, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Markoulli, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-631/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2016 — X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2016 — X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-631/16)
   (2017/C 086/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (1) of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by [A] Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, valid?

               2.

               Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 (2) of 28 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by [I] Ltd (China), and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, valid?

               3.

               If the answer to the first and/or the second question is in the negative, does it then mean that the duties paid should be repaid to the applicant with interest?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, how should that interest then be calculated?

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 245, p. 16).

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 262, p. 4).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2001 in Case C-12/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling form the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht): criminal proceedings against Marco Grilli (Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Transfer by road to one Member State of a motor vehicle purchased in another Member State — Temporary number plates — Criminal penalty for driving a vehicle without a valid registration)

text:
C 289/6                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, indent (a), to Council Directive 85/              its external trade and give rise to an advantage for national trade at
73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary                       the expense of that of another Member State, provided that those
inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/                 rules cannot be justified under Article 30 EC. It is for the national
425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended and consoli-                    court to ascertain whether that is so in the main proceedings.
dated by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be
interpreted as meaning that the standard additional amount laid
down by that provision to cover the cost of the controls and inspections       (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
connected with cutting operations is payable for all meat entering the
cutting plant, irrespective of whether it is actually cut in that cutting
plant.
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               in Case C-32/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                         of 2 October 2001                                     98/59/EC — Term ‘Employer’ — National law which
                                                                               excludes non-profit-making activities from the scope of the
in Case C-12/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling form                                      directive — Incomplete transposition)
the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht): criminal pro-
                 ceedings against Marco Grilli (1)                                                        (2003/C 289/11)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
effect — Transfer by road to one Member State of a motor
vehicle purchased in another Member State — Temporary
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
number plates — Criminal penalty for driving a vehicle
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    without a valid registration)
                           (2003/C 289/10)
                                                                               In Case C-32/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I. M. Braguglia,
                    (Language of the case: German)                             assisted by M. Mari): Application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                               adopting the necessary provisions in respect of employers
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         engaged in non-profit-making activities, the Italian Republic
                    in the European Court Reports)                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 98/
                                                                               59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of
                                                                               the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ
                                                                               1998 L 225, p. 16), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
In Case C-12/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                   of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and
by the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht (Germany) for a                      N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before                  R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003,
that court against Marco Grilli on the interpretation of                       in which it has ruled:
Article 29 EC, the Court (First Chamber), composed of
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas, P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                 1.     Declares that, by not adopting the necessary provisions in
gave a judgment on 2 October 2003, the operative part of                              respect of employers engaged in non-profit-making activities,
which is as follows:                                                                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approxi-
                                                                                mation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective
Article 29 EC precludes the rules of a Member State which prohibit                    redundancies;
a national of another Member State, on pain of criminal penalties
such as imprisonment or a fine, from taking to that other State a              2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
vehicle purchased in the first Member State bearing temporary
number plates issued, for the purpose of the export of the vehicle to
that other Member State, by the competent authorities of the latter            (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
State, if those rules are of such a kind as to restrict export patterns,
create a difference in treatment between a State’s domestic trade and


title: Case C-519/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou — Cyprus) — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil or commercial matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 8 — Refusal to accept the document — Failure to provide a translation of one of the documents served — Failure to use the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation — Consequences)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou — Cyprus) — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others
   (Case C-519/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil or commercial matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 8 - Refusal to accept the document - Failure to provide a translation of one of the documents served - Failure to use the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation - Consequences))
   (2015/C 371/04)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd

      Defendants: Dau Si Senh, Alpha Panareti Public Ltd, Susan Towson, Stewart Cresswell, Gillian Cresswell, Julie Gaskell, Peter Gaskell, Richard Wernham, Tracy Wernham, Joanne Zorani, Richard Simpson

      Operative part of the judgment

   Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               the receiving agency is required, in all circumstances and without it having a margin of discretion in that regard, to inform the addressee of a document of his right to refuse to accept that document, by using systematically for that purpose the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation, and

               —

               the fact that that agency, when serving a document on its addressee, fails to enclose the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, does not constitute a ground for the procedure to be declared invalid, but an omission which must be rectified in accordance with the provisions set out in that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case C-538/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — eVigilo Ltd v Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — eVigilo Ltd v Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos
   (Case C-538/13)
   2014/C 9/28
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court) (Lithuania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: eVigilo Ltd

      Respondent in cassation: Priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir gelbėjimo departamentas prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the public procurement rules of European Union law — the third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of [Directive 89/665, as amended by] Directive 2007/66, (1) in which are laid down the principles of effectiveness and expeditiousness with regard to the defence of rights of tenderers which have been infringed, Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, (2) which lays down the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency, and Articles 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18, in which is set out the procedure governing the conclusion of a contract with the tenderer which has submitted the most economically advantageous tender — to be understood and interpreted together or separately (but without a limitation to the aforementioned provisions) as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           in the case where a tenderer has become aware of a possible significant connection (link) which another tenderer has with the contracting authority’s experts who evaluated the tenders, and (or) has become aware of the potentially exceptional position of that tenderer by reason of preparatory work previously performed in connection with the procurement procedure in dispute, and where, in regard to those circumstances, the contracting authority has not undertaken any actions, that information alone is sufficient to establish a claim that the review body should recognise as unlawful the actions of the contracting authority which failed to ensure transparency and objectivity in the procedures, the applicant, moreover, not being required to prove in concrete terms that the experts acted in a biased manner?

                           (b)

                           the review body, having established that the grounds for the applicant’s abovementioned claim are well founded, is not obliged, when ruling on the consequences which those grounds may have for the results of the tendering procedure, to have regard for the fact that the results of the evaluation of the tenders submitted by tenderers would essentially have been the same if there had not been any biased assessors among the experts who evaluated the tenders?

                           (c)

                           the tenderer becomes (finally) aware of the content of the criteria relating to the most economically advantageous tender, which were formulated in accordance with the qualitative parameters and set out in abstract terms in the tendering conditions (criteria such as completeness and compatibility with the needs of the contracting authority), in respect of which the tenderer was essentially able to submit a tender, only at the time when, in accordance with those criteria, the contracting authority evaluated the tenders submitted by tenderers and provided interested parties with comprehensive information concerning the grounds for the decisions taken, and only from that moment could the limitation period governing the review procedure laid down in national law be applied to that tenderer?

               2.

               Must Article 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18, applied in conjunction with the principles governing the award of a contract set out in [Article] 2 of that directive, be understood and interpreted as meaning that contracting authorities are prohibited from establishing (and applying) a procedure for the evaluation of tenders submitted by tenderers under which the results of the evaluation of tenders depend on how comprehensively tenderers have demonstrated that their tenders satisfy the requirements of the tendering documents, that is to say, the more comprehensively (more extensively) the tenderer has described the conformity of its tender with the tendering conditions, the greater will be the number of marks awarded to its tender?

      (1)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-371/05: Action brought on  28 September 2005  — AIETC — Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/36

         Action brought on 28 September 2005 — AIETC — Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento and Others v Commission
   (Case T-371/05)
   (2005/C 296/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): AITEC — Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento (Rome, Italy), BUZZI UNICEM S.P.A. (Casale Monferrato, Italy), ITALCEMENTI GROUP (Bergamo, Italy) (represented by: Massimo Merla, Claudio Tesauro, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               insofar as the Commission is unable to demonstrate that the mandate given to Commissioner Dimas authorised him to be a signatory to measures adopted concerning competition policy and, in particular, state aid, make a declaration that the Decision is null and of no effect;

               —

               annul: (i) that part of the Decision in which, by stating that no objections are made to the national allocation plan (‘NAP’) (Article 2 of the Decision) and thereby approving the distribution of allowances among the sectors of industry set out in the plan, it sanctioned the discrimination inherent in that distribution which favoured undertakings in some sectors to the disadvantage of other undertakings; (ii) that part of the Decision which states that the intended authorisation of existing installations which are subject to an update of their permits to draw allowances from the new entrants reserve for the part of the modified installation which already existed before the permit update, even where the new entrants have not used up the allowances specifically reserved for them, is incompatible with criterion (10) of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC; and (iii) that part of the Decision which calls upon the Italian state to amend the NAP so that existing installations which are subject to an update of their permits are not allowed to draw allowances from the new entrants reserve for the part of the modified installation which already existed before the permit update (Article 2(b) of the Decision).

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The subject of this action is the Decision of 25 May 2005 (1) in which the Commission gave its opinion on the compatibility of the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified to it by Italy (‘NAP’) with the criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 2003/87 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2002 (2).
   First, the applicants seek to ascertain whether the Commissioner who was signatory to the contested measure is competent to adopt the Decision. In particular, they call upon the Court of First Instance to establish whether Commissioner Dimas has competence in relation to measures adopted concerning competition policy and, in particular, state aid, and to make a declaration, should there be sufficient grounds, that the contested measure is null and of no effect.
   Secondly, the applicants contend that by examining the NAP, a measure that is liable to incorporate elements of state aid, without complying with the procedural provisions in Article 88 (2) and (3) EC, the Commission infringed that provision.
   Thirdly, the applicants submit that when the Commission became aware that there were potential state aid aspects to the NAP, it infringed Article 87 EC, criterion (5) of Annex III to Directive 2003/87 EC and the principle of non-discrimination in that, by approving the distribution of allowances set out in the NAP, it gave its approval to the discrimination inherent in that distribution, which was to the detriment of cement producers.
   The applicants submit fourthly that the Commission misapplied criterion (10) of Annex III to Directive 2003/87 EC in stating that ‘Italy's intended authorisation of existing installations which are subject to an update of their permits to draw allowances from the new entrants reserve for the part of the modified installation which already existed before the permit update’ was contrary to that criterion. The Commission thereby infringed criterion (5) of Annex III to Directive 2003/87 EC and the principle of non-discrimination in that, by failing to take account of the specific nature of the sectors of industry affected by the implementation of the Directive as far as their capacity to increase production was concerned, it again placed cement producers at a disadvantage compared with other producers.
   Lastly, the applicants claim that by approving the NAP notwithstanding the facts that it does not make express provision for undertakings to make appropriate preparations for the transfer of allowances or pooling of installations, that it provides for reference periods for the transfer of residual allowances other than a five-year period and that it imposes unjustifiable restrictions on the pooling of installations and does not make provision for the surrender of cancelled emission allowances, the Commission infringed Articles 11, 12, 13 and 28 of Directive 2003/87 EC.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 25 May 2005 on the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Italy in accordance with Directive 2003/87 of the European Parliament and Council [C(2005)1527 fin, OJ C 226 of 15.09.2005, p. 2].

      (2)  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 L 275 of 25 October 2005, p. 32).


title: Case T-428/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — IOC-UK v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Right to property — Equal treatment and non-discrimination)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — IOC-UK v Council
   (Case T-428/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Equal treatment and non-discrimination))
   (2015/C 371/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, and subsequently by V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-558/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko
   (Case C-558/13)
   2014/C 45/30
   Language of the case: Slovakian

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CD Consulting s.r.o.

      Defendant: Marián Vasko

      Question referred

   Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 4 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which in principle does not allow the national court deciding on rights under an endorsed bill of exchange at any stage of the proceedings to examine of its own motion the agreement and the basis of the legal relationship and the possible unfair nature of a contractual term and any breach of the law regulating the consequences of the failure to state the APR in the consumer credit agreement from which the bill of exchange arose?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 1999 in Case T-143/98: Michael Cendrowicz v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Appointments — Determination of the level at which posts are to be filled — Vacancy notice — Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 102/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 December 1999
                    of 16 December 1999
                                                                          in Case T-144/98: Dino Cantoreggi v European Parlia-
in Case T-143/98: Michael Cendrowicz v Commission of                                                      ment (1)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative
(Officials — Appointments — Determination of the level at                                                 merits)
which posts are to be filled — Vacancy notice — Con-
   sideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/46)
                        (2000/C 102/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)                          In Case T-144/98: Dino Cantoreggi, an official of the European
                                                                          Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
In Case T-143/98: Michael Cendrowicz, an official of the                  European Parliament (Agents: Yannis Pantalis and Denis
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                    Waelbroeck), supported by N, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
Marc-Alber Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service           and Greta-Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, and Cathy
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 Rue             Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
de Cessange, against Commission of the European Communi-                  Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 49 Boulevard Royal —
ties (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieu-              application for annulment of a refusal of promotion — the
sart-Clotuche) — application for, first, annulment of the                 Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
decision of the Commission appointing Carlos Camino to post               A. Potocki, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
COM/98/97 as Head of Unit 1 ‘India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka’             J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
in Directorate C of Directorate-General 1B, of the decision               a judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:
rejecting his application for that post and, in so far as
necessary, the decision rejecting his claim for damages and,
secondly, a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance               1. Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 12 February,
(Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,                     25 February and 22 June 1998, respectively appointing N to
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a                   the post of head of the Buildings Management Division, rejecting
judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:                                     the application of the applicant for that post and rejecting the
                                                                               applicant’s complaint;
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                          2. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                               the applicant’s costs;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          3. Orders N, as intervener, to bear his own costs.
(1) OJ C 340 of 1998.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.


title: Case C-405/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 17 May 2011 in Case T-1/08 Buczek Automotive v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/19

         Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 17 May 2011 in Case T-1/08 Buczek Automotive v Commission
   (Case C-405/11 P)
   2011/C 311/32
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Buczek Automotive Sp. z o.o., Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 in Case T-1/08 Buczek Automotive Sp. z o.o. v Commission in so far as it annuls the contested decision;

               —

               give final judgment on the issues which are the subject of the present appeal;

               —

               refer the decision back to the General Court for fresh consideration as regards the remaining pleas put forward at first instance;

               —

               reserve costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the appeal the Commission puts forward two pleas, namely infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 296 TFEU and Protocol No 8 to the 2004 Act of Accession on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry (1) (‘Protocol No 8’).
   First, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by assessing on the basis of an incorrect legal standard the private creditor test applied by the Commission. The Court thus stated that the Commission was obliged to carry out additional calculations of the gains from various methods of enforcement and should have compared the duration of the various enforcement procedures for the recovery of public debts. The Commission submits that it is not obliged to carry out precise calculations, but to take account of the factors that a private creditor would consider when taking his decision.
   In addition, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly placing the burden of proof on the Commission, that is to say, by placing on the Commission the obligation to adduce additional evidence — in particular as regards the duration of the various procedures or comparison of the amount of the receipts from various types or stages of effective recovery of the debts — in order to reject the argument concerning the conduct of a private creditor.
   Second, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 296 TFEU and Protocol No 8 by incorrectly finding that the Commission did not fulfil the obligation to state the reasons for which the aid would have affected trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition. The Court took no account at all of the fact that the aid in question must be recognised as distorting or threatening to distort competition on the basis of primary law, namely Protocol No 8, which constitutes the decision’s legal basis, so that additional justification in the decision for the conditions relating to trade and competition was superfluous.

      (1)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded — Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 948).