title: Case T-144/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Kassarate v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/24

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Kassarate v Council
   (Case T-144/11)
   2011/C 130/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tiapé Edouard Kassarate (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard and L. Aliot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Case C-157/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.6.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Commission of                    Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case C-155/00)                                                         (Case C-157/00)
                          (2000/C 176/27)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/28)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as            Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
Agent, assisted by Massimo Moretto, of the Venice Bar, with             represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
— declare that, by adopting Law No 21 of the Region of
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Lombardy, which allows contracting authorities to grant
     concessions for works without complying with the rules
     on advertising or to award public works contracts, without         — grant the application;
     having first issued a public invitation to tender, to under-
     takings which have submitted projects, the Italian Republic
                                                                        — annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
                                                                             C(2000) 488 Final/1.3.2000 excluding from Community
     93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
                                                                             financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
     of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1),
                                                                             States under the Guarantee Section of the European
     in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof;
                                                                             Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF),
                                                                             which has been published in the Official Journal of the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                               European Communities as Decision No 2000/216/EC (OJ
                                                                             2000 L 67, p. 37), so far as concerns the chapters thereof
                                                                             specifically contested, relating to financial corrections to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Article 32 of the Regional Law allows contracting authorities
(a) to grant concessions for works the value of which is equal
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
to or greater than ECU 5 000 000 without complying with
the rules on advertising and (b) to award public works
contracts the amount of which is equal to or greater than the           — Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 5 of
threshold indicated above without first publishing an invitation             Regulation No 2221/95, in the alternative incorrect assess-
to tender, alternatively by means of a negotiated procedure, in              ment of the facts.
circumstances different from those exceptional cases implicitly
enumerated by the directive. The correctness of such an
                                                                        — Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70
interpretation is demonstrated by the way in which Article 32
                                                                             and overstepping by the Commission of the limits of its
has been applied by the Municipality of Monza in the context
                                                                             discretion.
of a procedure for the construction of a plant for the disposal
of solid urban waste.
                                                                        — No legal basis for imposing the financial correction at issue
                                                                             and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
Moreover, even if it were to be held that the Municipality of
Monza had misinterpreted and misapplied Article 32 in the
belief that that article permitted derogations from the normal          — With regard to the undertaking not to replant: misinterpret-
rules on advertising, that in itself shows, according to the                 ation of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation No 2505/95 and
Commission, that the wording of Article 32 does not satisfy the              Articles 3 and 4(3) of Regulation No 2684/95.
requirements of clarity, unambiguousness and legal certainty
imposed on the Member States by virtue of the settled case-
                                                                        — With regard to the failure to record the date on the
law of the Court with regard to the transposition of directives.
                                                                             certificates: misinterpretation of Article 4 of Regulation No
                                                                             2684/95 — incorrect assessment of the facts.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9 August 1993, p. 54.
                                                                        — With regard to the failure to give advance notice of
                                                                             the date of grubbing-up operations: misinterpretation of
                                                                             Article 5 of Regulation No 2684/95.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 176/17
— With regard to the extent of the parcel of land to be                     part of the expenses declared pursuant to Article 7(1) of
     grubbed up: incorrect interpretation and application of                Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (3) be excluded
     Article 2 of Regulation No 2505/95 and Article 2 of                    from Community financing in respect of a period not
     Regulation No 2684/95.                                                 exceeding 24 months prior to the date of formal receipt of
                                                                            the notice. It follows that a refusal of financing cannot
— With regard to delivery notes and weight notes: misinter-                 affect expenses incurred before 26 May 1996.
     pretation of Article 15 of Regulation No 1558/91 and
     incorrect assessment of the facts.                                — Erroneous reasoning in that the decision does not take
                                                                            account of the evidence put forward by the Grand Duchy
— With regard to the serious deficiencies in the system of                  of Luxembourg for the correct assessment of the financial
     control which are relied upon (Articles 15 and 16 of                   consequences of the irregularities found:
     Regulation No 1558/91: absence of reports and checks):
     misinterpretation of Article 16 of Regulation No 1558/91               — The Commission generalises the defects found by
     and incorrect assessment of the facts.
                                                                                challenging the whole system of administrative and
                                                                                on-the-spot controls;
                                                                            — The defects should be viewed in an overall context and
                                                                                in their true perspective in order to assess their
                                                                                significance (the financial corrections proposed bear
                                                                                no relation to the financial interests affected);
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Grand Duchy of                       — The Commission failed to take into account and give
Luxembourg against the Commission of the European                                credit for the many efforts to improve and perfect the
                         Communities                                             integrated system made since it was established (both
                                                                                in relation to the processing and computerised moni-
                                                                                toring of applications and in relation to the training of
                        (Case C-158/00)                                          controllers and improvement of the monitoring and
                                                                                investigative documents). The Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                        (2000/C 176/29)                                          bourg considers that it has proved that the Commission
                                                                                made a manifest error of assessment as to the financial
                                                                                consequences to be drawn from the irregularities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        discovered by refusing to take account of the evidence
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     put forward.
Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, represented by Ferdinand Hofstetter, acting as
Agent, assisted by Roger Nothar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with           — Infringement of the guidelines in Document VI/5330/97
an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Roger               and of the principle of proportionality: The extenuating
Nothar, 99 Avenue du Bois.                                                  circumstance relied upon by the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, proposed by the Conciliation Body and laid down
                                                                            by the guidance document was dismissed by the Com-
The applicant claims that the court should:                                 mission on the ground that the European Parliament insists
                                                                            that the Commission apply the correction factors until the
— annul Commission Decision C(2000) 488 of 1 March                          deficiencies found have been eliminated. That rigorous
     2000, excluding certain expenses by the Grand Duchy                    approach is, however, entirely contrary to the purpose of
     of Luxembourg from Community financing under the                       the guidance document, which is designed to adjust the
     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      correction factors by reference to actual circumstances. In
     (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the financial years 1996-              addition, the application of a correction factor of 5 % is
     1998 by not definitively charging to the EAGGF the sum                 totally disproportionate in relation to the risk of loss for
     of LUF 56 106 800 by way of expenses relating to arable                the EAGGF, which is in reality non-existent.
     crops;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                               (1) OJ L 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13.
                                                                       (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on
                                                                           data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of
                                                                           the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
                                                                           repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88 (OJ L 39, 17.2.1996,
— Infringement of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No
                                                                           p. 5).
     1287/95 of 22 May 1995 (1) amending Regulation (EEC)
     No 729/70 (2) on the financing of the common agricultural
     policy: It was only in a notice of 26 May 1998 that the
     Directorate General for Agriculture informed the Grand
     Duchy of Luxembourg of its intention to recommend that


title: Case T-58/99: Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited, Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and Viraj Impoexpo Limited against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 160/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.6.1999
Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited,                    — The adoption of the Definitive Regulation is vitiated by the
Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and                         infringement of a fundamental procedural requirement
Viraj Impoexpo Limited against the Council of the Euro-                       pursuant to article 10.9 of the Basic Regulation and/or
                            pean Union                                        article 13.1 of the ASCM, thus making the Definitive
                                                                              Regulation void ab initio, having been initiated without due
                                                                              consultation with the Government of India.
                           (Case T-58/99)
                                                                         — The Definitive Regulation infringes articles 1.1, 2.1(a)(ii)
                          (1999/C 160/45)                                     and 15.2 of the Basic Regulation and/or articles 1.1(a)1(ii)
                                                                              and 19.3 of the ASCM, and/or the principle of pro-
                                                                              portionality, and/or makes a manifest error of assessment
                   (Language of the case: English)                            of the facts and procedure, by imposing countervailing
                                                                              duties in inappropriate amounts in respect of the Indian
                                                                              ‘Passbook Scheme’.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited,                       (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on
Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and Viraj                  protection against subsidised imports from countries not members
Impoexpo Limited, represented by Dr. Konstantinos Ada-                       of the European Community (OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1).
mantopoulos and Mr Jonathan Branton, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Meder-
nach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant applies to the Court for:
— a declaration, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 of the
    Treaty establishing the European Communities (‘the
    Treaty’), that Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of                 Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Townsend
    13 November 1998 imposing definitive countervailing                    against the Commission of the European Communities
    duties against imports of stainless steel bars originating in
    India (‘the Definitive Regulation’), adopted pursuant to
    the Basic Regulation (1) is null and void. The Definitive                                       (Case T-60/99)
    Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the
    European Communities on 14 November 1998 (OJ L 304,
    14.11.1998, p. 1),                                                                             (1999/C 160/46)
— an order that the costs of an occasioned by these proceed-
    ings be borne by the defendant.                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Town-
The applicants are fully integrated producer-exporters of                send, residing at Sterrebeek (Belgium), represented by Jean-
stainless steel bright bars and exported these bars to the               Noël Louis and Greta-Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
Community during the period of investigation relevant to the             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
Definitive Regulation.                                                   of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
By the Definitive Regulation a definitive countervailing duty            The applicant claims that the Court should:
ranging from 14,4 to 25,5 % was imposed on imports of
stainless steel bars falling within CN Codes 7222 20 11, 7222            — annul the Commission’s decision refusing to cover the
20 21, 7222 20 31 and 7222 20 81 originating in India.                        applicant’s wife against the risks of sickness and accidents,
The applicants submit that the Definitive Regulation should be           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
annulled on the following grounds:
— The Definitive Regulation infringes articles 1.1, 8.1, 8.6,            Pleas in law and main arguments
    8.7 and 15.1 of the Basic Regulation and/or articles 15
    and 19 of the 1994 World Trade Organisation’s Agreement
    on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), and/or              The applicant, a grade A 4 official, works in the Secretariat of
    makes a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the            the Monetary Committee (DG II). His wife was seconded as a
    law, by imposing a countervailing duty in the absence of a           teacher to the European School in Brussels until 1995. Since
    correct and proper determination that imports of the                 then, she has been in receipt of an early retirement pension.
    product concerned have caused material injury to the                 She resides with the applicant in Brussels and is no longer in
    Community industry producing the like product.                       employment.


title: Case T-253/00, T-255/00 and T-256/00: Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Bauer SpA and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/27
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by P. E. Hoyer                      Ground of application for annulment of Decision R/78/2000:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        In so far as the termination of employment was legally
                        (Case T-249/00)                                 valid, notice thereof was given for a legally incorrect date
                                                                        (23 November 1999 instead of 15 February 2000). The term
                                                                        of notice must be extended by a number of days of illness.
                        (2000/C 355/59)
                                                                        Ground of application for annulment of Decision R/26/2000:
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        In so far as the termination of employment was legally valid,
                                                                        the amount of leave outstanding as at the date of termination
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               of employment was wrongly calculated (contrary to the ‘just
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              solution’ as referred to in the 1994 judgment).
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by P. E. Hoyer,
residing at Hoeilaart, Belgium, represented by G. van der Wal,
of the Hague Bar, of the firm Barents & Krans, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, of the
Luxembourg Bar, 398 Route d’Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:           Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Bauer SpA and
                                                                        Others against Commission of the European Communities
1.    declare the application admissible;
                                                                                (Case T-253/00, T-255/00 and T-256/00)
2.    annul the contested decisions            (R/26/2000     and
      R/78/2000) of 14 June 2000;
                                                                                (2000/C 355/60)
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In 1990 the applicant took part in an internal competition. By          European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Bauer SpA
judgment in Case T-43/91 [1994] ECR-SC II-297, the Court                and Others, represented by Andrea Bortoluzzi, of the Venice
of First Instance upheld the applicant’s application for annul-         Bar, and Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the
ment of the decision of the selection board not to place him            Naples Bar.
on the list of successful candidates. By judgment of the same
date, his application for annulment of the termination of his           The applicant claims that the Court should:
contract of employment as a member of the temporary staff
was also upheld (Case T-51/91 [1994] ECR-SC II-341).                    —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
According to the applicant, in 1998 the Commission, contrary            —     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of the Decision;
to the agreements made between the parties, decided to re-
open the aforementioned internal competition. The applicant             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
was again not placed on the list of successful candidates; he
lodged an application for annulment of that decision also
(Case T-119/99).                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Referring to the last-mentioned decision of the selection board,        The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
the Commission terminated his employment as a member of                 Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
the temporary staff (contract for an indefinite period). The            Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
applicant lodged an application for annulment of that decision
also (Case T-70/00).                                                    The applicants allege in particular that the decision to recover
                                                                        the aid in question infringes Article 87(1) and (3)(c) and (d) of
                                                                        the Treaty and breaches of the principles of proportionality
By decision of 14 June 2000 (R/78/2000), the defendant
                                                                        and equal treatment.
refused to reconsider its position regarding the date on which
the contract of employment ended. By decision of the same
date (R/26/2000), the defendant refused to declare that six             (1) Not yet published.
days’ leave had been wrongly deducted and that the applicant
was still entitled to 55 days’ leave. The present application
seeks the annulment of both decisions.


title: Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer — Technical examination — Distinctiveness — Test guidelines — Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
   (Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14) (1)

   ((Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer - Technical examination - Distinctiveness - Test guidelines - Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO))
   (2015/C 354/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Brookfield New Zealand Limited (Havelock North, New Zealand); and Elaris SNC (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Eller, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-195/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom)) — Synthon BV v Merz Pharma GmbH & Co KGaA (Patent law — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Article 2 — Scope — Safety and efficacy testing laid down by Directive 65/65/EEC — Absence — Invalidity of the certificate)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom)) — Synthon BV v Merz Pharma GmbH & Co KGaA
   (Case C-195/09) (1)

   (Patent law - Medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Article 2 - Scope - Safety and efficacy testing laid down by Directive 65/65/EEC - Absence - Invalidity of the certificate)
   2011/C 298/02
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Synthon BV

      Defendant: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co KGaA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 13 and 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of first authorisation to place the product on the market — Authorisation issued in accordance with a national Law applying Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 24) — Obligation on the national authority issuing the authorisation to have assessed the particulars as provided for by that directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was placed on the market in the European Community as a medicinal product for human use before obtaining a marketing authorisation in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989, and, in particular, without undergoing safety and efficacy testing, is not within the scope of Regulation No 1768/92, as amended, and may not, therefore, be the subject of a supplementary protection certificate.

               2.

               A supplementary protection certificate granted for a product outside the scope of Regulation No 1768/92, as amended, as that scope is defined in Article 2 of that regulation, is invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-238/96: Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1992 and 1993 - Beef and veal)

text:
21.11.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 358/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) Ð application
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 96/311/
                                                                     EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of the accounts
                      of 1 October 1998                              presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                     expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
in Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark v. Commission
                                                                     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                     (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth
                        Beef and veal)                               Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
                         (98/C 358/05)                               Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                     Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     which it:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Dismisses the application;
In Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: P.
                                                                     2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Biering) v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. P. Hartvig) Ð application for the annulment in
part of Commission Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996               (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in respect of certain
expenditure for 1993 (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón,                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                                             (Fifth Chamber)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it:                                                               of 1 October 1998
                                                                               in Case C-242/96: Italy v. Commission (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                     (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð
                                                                                Beef and veal)
2. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 358/07)
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           published in the European Court Reports)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 1 October 1998                              In Case C-242/96: Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza
in Case C-238/96: Ireland v. Commission of the European              and M. Fiorilli) v. Commission of the European
                       Communities (1)                               Communities (Agents: E. de March and P. Ziotti) Ð
                                                                     application for the annulment in part of Commission
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                     Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of
                        Beef and veal)                               the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
                                                                     the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
                         (98/C 358/06)
                                                                     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                     (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
               (Language of the case: English)                       (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
In Case 238/96: Ireland (Agent: M. A. Buckley, assisted by           Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
M. Finlay, SC, and D. Barniville) v. Commission of the               Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the


title: Case C-415/08 P: Order of the Court of 23 September 2009 — Complejo Agrícola, SA v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Protection of habitats — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Commission Decision — Action for annulment brought by natural or legal persons — Admissibility — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/9

         Order of the Court of 23 September 2009 — Complejo Agrícola, SA v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-415/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Protection of habitats - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Commission Decision - Action for annulment brought by natural or legal persons - Admissibility - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   2010/C 11/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Complejo Agrícola, SA (represented by: A. Menéndez Menéndez and G. Yanguas Montero, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 in Case T-345/06 Complejo Agrícola v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application for partial annulment of Article 1 of Annex 1 of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz’, which includes a farm belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Complejo Agrícola S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313 of 06.12.2008


title: Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-169/96)

text:
  20 . 7 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 210/7
        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
        same provisions,                                                 European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                                              ( Case C-1 70/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/ 15 )
  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the              Communities on 15 May 1 996 by the Commission of the
 Directive expired on 31 October 1993 ,                                  European Communities, represented by Pieter Van Nuffel ,
                                                                         acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 (') OJ No L 22 7, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of
 (2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal.                               the Commission of the European Communities, Wagner
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Act of the Council of 4 March 1996 entitled
                                                                             'Joint action on airport transit arrangements ' ('),
 Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 — order the Council to pay the costs .
                          ( Case C- 1 69/96 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                            ( 96/C 210/14
                                                                        — Infringement of the EC Treaty :
 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  The matters governed by the contested Act fall within
 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the competence of the European Community and not
 Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      within the area of cooperation in the fields of justice and
 acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                  home affairs ( CJHA ). Where the EC Treaty confers
 at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service ,            powers on the institutions , they may only exercise them
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    in accordance with that Treaty; they may not legally
                                                                             exercise them within any other framework , even a
                                                                             framework established by the Treaty on European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 Union .
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              As regards Articles 3 and 4 and the Annex to the
       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 contested Act, the Commission considers that the
      comply with Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of                         underlying interpretation, to the effect that travellers
       25 November 1993 laying down Annex VII D ,                            ( ordinarily ) remaining within the international areas of
      containing information required for the technical                      airports do not cross an external frontier of a Member
       dossier referred to in Article         12 of the seventh              State, is erroneous; the criterion employed by
      amendment of Council Directive 67/548/EEC ('), the                     Article 100c of the EC Treaty is not the crossing of a
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations               checkpoint. It is clear from a systematic interpretation of
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                     the relevant provisions that airport transit visas form an
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 93/105/EEC,                          integral part of the provisions relating to visa policy as a
                                                                             whole ; that policy falls, in principle , within the sphere of
— declare , in the alternative , that by failing to inform the               CJHA, save in two respects, one of which is the
      Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese                         determination of the list of third countries concerned .
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      same provisions,                                                       As regards Article 2(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the contested Act, the
                                                                             Commission considers that, having regard to their real
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                           meaning, those provisions — which , read in isolation ,
                                                                             fall within the area of CJHA — are covered by the
                                                                             Community's power to adopt provisions which are
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              ancillary to matters falling within the competence of the
                                                                             Community.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the                   As regards Article 2 ( 3 ), this simply repeats, within the
Directive expired on 31 December 1993 .                                      framework of CJHA, an obligation which already arises
                                                                             from Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1683/95 ( 2 ).
(') OJ No L 294, 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             — Breach of essential procedural requirements :
                                                                             The choice of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European
                                                                             Union as the legal basis for the Act of 4 March 199 6 ,


title: Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Groupe Perry SA and Isibiris against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-132/98)

text:
C 312/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.10.98
Action brought on 7 August 1998 by AeÂroports de Paris               as the present case manifestly concerns the air transport
     against Commission of the European Communities                  sector and the transport sector as a whole has been
                       (Case T-128/98)                               removed from the scope of Regulation No 17. According
                                                                     to ADP, the misapplication of that Regulation constitutes
                         (98/C 312/47)                               a serious procedural defect vitiating the decision.
                (Language of the case: French)                       Secondly, ADP alleges infringement of the rights of the
                                                                     defence, since the contested decision is wholly at variance
                                                                     with the position expressly stated by the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                     throughout the administrative procedure.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 August 1998
by AeÂroports de Paris (ADP), a public corporation whose             Thirdly, ADP submits that the contested decision falls
registered office is in Paris, represented by Hugues Calvet,         seriously short of fulfilling the obligation to state reasons.
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                     Fourthly, ADP maintains that the Commission misapplied
Rue.
                                                                     the provisions of Article 86 of the EC Treaty: ADP is not
                                                                     an undertaking within the meaning of Article 86; the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Commission's definition of the market is seriously
                                                                     inaccurate; ADP does not enjoy a dominant position; its
                                                                     conduct does not meet the conditions laid down in
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 11 June 1998                    Article 86 and no discrimination may properly be
    which states that ADP has infringed Article 86 of the            attributed to it.
    EC Treaty and must put an end to the infringement
    within two months of the date of notification of the
    decision,                                                        Fifthly, ADP argues that the competition rules cannot be
                                                                     applied to it in the present case pursuant to Article 90(2)
                                                                     of the EC Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs
    incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.
                                                                     Lastly, ADP claims that the Commission has infringed
                                                                     Article 222 of the EC Treaty and, by misapplying
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Article 86 of the EC Treaty, has misused its powers.
The applicant is a public corporation with responsibility
for the planning, administration and development of all
the civil air transport installations which are centred in the
Paris region and which seek to facilitate the arrival and
departure of aircraft, to control traffic and to load, unload        Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Groupe Perry SA
and groundhandle passengers, goods and mail carried by               and Isibiris against Commission of the European
air. In 1995 Alpha Flight Services, a company which                                            Communities
supplies airport catering services at Paris-Orly Airport,                                   (Case T-132/98)
lodged a formal complaint against ADP alleging that the
latter was imposing discriminatory fees on the suppliers of                                   (98/C 312/48)
catering services in breach of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that
ADP had infringed the provisions of Article 86 of the EC             An action against the Commission of the European
Treaty by using its dominant position as manager of the              Communities was brought before the Court of First
Paris airports to impose discriminatory commercial fees in           Instance of the European Communities on 12 August
the Paris airports of Orly and Roissy-Charles de Gaulle on           1998 by Groupe Perry SA and Isibiris, whose registered
suppliers or users engaged in groundhandling or self-                offices are in Luxembourg, represented by Fernand
handling activities relating to catering (including the              Entringer, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
loading and unloading of food and beverages on aircraft),            service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 34a Rue Philippe
to the cleaning of aircraft and to the handling of cargo.            II.
Under Article 2 of the decision, ADP is required to put an
end to the infringement by applying to the suppliers of
groundhandling services concerned a non-discriminatory               The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
scheme of commercial fees within two months of the date              should:
of notification of the contested decision.
                                                                     Ð declare that the Commission acted improperly,
ADP maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by a
procedural defect, on which ground it must be annulled.              Ð declare that that improper conduct gives rise to non-
The application of Regulation No 17 is unlawful in so far                contractual liability on the part of the Union,
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 312/21
Ð declare that the applicants suffered loss as a result of          point out that the Commission was judge and party in the
    that improper conduct,                                          case and conclude that the defendant institution thus
                                                                    infringed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
                                                                    Rights.
Ð declare that the Union is required to compensate that
    loss,
                                                                    The applicants submit that, as a result of that unlawful
Ð take formal note that Groupe Perry estimates that loss            conduct, Groupe Perry can no longer continue to work
    to be ECU 10 000 000,                                           with the Commission, which was its only customer, nor is
                                                                    it able to find other customers because of the negative
                                                                    publicity received by it in the international press. Its
Ð take formal note that Isibiris estimates its loss to be           business is therefore ruined and it claims the sum of ECU
    ECU 500 000,                                                    10 000 000 in respect of material and non-material loss.
Ð order the Union to pay all the costs of the
    proceedings.                                                    Isibiris is seeking the sum of ECU 500 000 by way of
                                                                    compensation for non-material loss, together with a
                                                                    declaration that it is not required to repay the sum of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 ECU 540 000 claimed by the Commission.
The applicants are seeking compensation for the loss they
consider they suffered as a result of the steps taken against
them by the Commission because of alleged irregularities
committed by them in the performance of certain
contracts entered into in the context of the European
Union humanitarian aid programmes for Bosnia and the                       Removal from the register of Case T-285/97 (1)
Great Lakes region of Africa. According to the applicants,                                  (98/C 312/49)
the Commission penalised the two companies by failing to
pay the invoices due, by ordering its departments not to
enter into contracts with them, by assigning employees of                          (Language of the case: English)
the Perry Group to other companies and by requiring
Isibiris to repay a large sum of money.
                                                                    By order of 7 July 1998, the President of the Second
The applicants submit that the Commission's action was              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
based on a report drawn up by the Unit for the                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) following an               of Case T-285/97: Kuljetusliike R. Pynnönen Oy v.
enquiry carried out by that body, without first hearing the         Commission of the European Communities.
companies in question, to which it even refused to provide
a copy of the aforementioned reports. Furthermore, they             (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.


title: Case T-34/08: Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/31

         Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-34/08)
   (2008/C 79/61)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Henning, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007 disallowing part of the applicant's costs in the context of the ‘Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the Daphne II programme (1). By letter of 16 November 2007, the defendant sent the applicant a revised calculation of the payment to the applicant that was still outstanding, in which part of the applicant's costs were deemed to be ineligible for support. The applicant brought the present action against that decision.
   The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested decision is based on an erroneous assessment of the facts. In particular, adequate supporting evidence was inappropriately regarded as being inadequate, and costs of employing temporary assistants and trainees, together with costs provided for in the budget and certain travel costs were inappropriately disallowed.

      (1)  Decision No 803/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 adopting a programme of Community action (2004 to 2008) to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (the Daphne II programme) (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 1).


title: Case C-339/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — European Commission implementing decision — Notification to the addressee — Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/18

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-339/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 239/23)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 November 2013 in Case E-6/13 — Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen (Lawyers’ freedom to provide cross-border services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Self-representation — Notification requirement in national law — Consequences of failure to notify)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 27 November 2013
   in Case E-6/13
   Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen
   (Lawyers’ freedom to provide cross-border services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Self-representation — Notification requirement in national law — Consequences of failure to notify)
   2014/C 88/10
   In Case E-6/13, Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Fürstliche Landgericht des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Princely Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of the freedom to provide services, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A lawyer bringing proceedings in his own name in an EEA State other than the one in which he is established may rely on the freedom to provide services and Directive 77/249/EEC if he is acting in a professional capacity, and if the national legal order of the host State foresees that a lawyer may act on his own behalf in the capacity as a lawyer in legal proceedings.

               2.

               A national rule such as Article 59 of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act, whereby a lawyer established in another EEA State is required, in all circumstances and on his own motion, not only to provide documentation to establish his qualifications as a lawyer, but also to notify the competent authorities of the host State prior to providing services in that State, and to renew the notification yearly, is contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 77/249/EEC and to Article 36 EEA.

               3.

               Failure to comply with a national rule such as Article 59 of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act cannot be a relevant consideration as regards the possibility of claiming legal fees relating to the cross-border provision of services by a lawyer.


title: Case T-174/01: Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 317/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.11.2001
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 6 July 2001                                 —     Annul the contested act;
in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          —     Declare her to be entitled to obtain a survivor’s pension;
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary                 —     Set the amount of that pension at 200 000 BEF a month;
staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary
staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking                —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
           in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)
                          (2001/C 317/51)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-375/00: Danielle Dubigh, a member of the auxiliary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                      The applicant, divorced from a former member of the Court
residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, also a member                 of Justice, now deceased, is challenging the defendant’s refusal
of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European                  to grant her a survivor’s pension. That decision is based on the
Communities, residing in Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented               alleged absence of any maintenance agreement concluded after
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for                 the divorce was granted and on the fact that a survivor’s
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                 pension is conditional upon a right to maintenance.
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decisions
of 12 January 2000 rejecting the applicants’ requests of                  In support of her claims, the applicant maintains that the
24 September 1999 for regularisation of their administrative              defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the case, was
situation by recognising them as members of the temporary                 not entitled to consider that the two sworn declarations she
staff of the European Communities — the Court of First                    produced in order to establish the existence and amount of the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-               maintenance agreement with her ex-husband were insufficient.
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has made an order on 6 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                 Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-174/01)
Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court
            of Justice of the European Communities                                                 (2001/C 317/53)
                          (Case T-172/01)                                 (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                          (2001/C 317/52)                                                            made: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn of Makati, Metro
of the European Communities on 26 July 2001 by M,                         Manila (Philippines), represented by Dr Siegfried Jackermeier,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Harisios Tagaras,                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further party
lawyers.                                                                  before the board of appeal: Redcats SA, Roubaix (France).
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/27
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:          Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de
                                                                       Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);
                                                                                (Case T-175/01)
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Applicant for the Com-        the applicant                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
munity mark:                                                           European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
                                                                       a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
                                                                       by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
Trade mark applied for:       ‘Silk Cocoon’ for goods in
                              Class 25 (clothing) — Application
                              No 551903                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Holder of the rights in       Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for-       —     annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
the mark or sign relied       merly La Redoute SA)                           Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
on in the opposition                                                         notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
proceedings:
                                                                       —     annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Opposed mark or sign:         the French and international word              Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
                              mark ‘Cocoon’ for goods in                     notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
                              Class 25
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Decision of the Oppo-         dismissal of the opposition
sition Division:
                                                                       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Decision of the Board of      annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division
                                                                       The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
                                                                       in Case T-107/01, (1) claims to have been subjected to excessive
Pleas in law relied on:       —    infringement of Article 43(2)       financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
                                   of     Council     Regulation       its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
                                   No 40/94 (1);                       surrender of its mining licences. Because of the French
                                                                       administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
                              —    lack of evidence of genuine         impossible to effect.
                                   use of the opposed marks;
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(2)
                                   of Commission Regulation            Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
                                   No 2868/95 (2);                     administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
                                                                       under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(1)          the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
                                   of Commission Regulation            was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
                                   No 2686/95.                         action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
                                                                       under No T-107/01, referred to above.
                                                                       On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the        formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December               ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
    1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the          an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
    Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).                        Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
                                                                       informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
                                                                       ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
                                                                       which are challenged.


title: Case C-46/99: Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
10.4.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 100/13
Germany, and not that received by him in his last                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred
employment in Germany.                                                  to in the Commission's application.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
That method of calculation clearly penalises the worker
concerned on account of the fact that he is resident in a
Member State other than that in which he has worked,
and is incompatible with the main objective of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71, which is to facilitate freedom of
movement for workers.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    the application of security schemes to employed persons and         Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
    to members of their families moving within the Community            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
                                                                                (Case C-46/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/23)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the Euroepan Communities on
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission                    16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                        Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                          (Case C-45/99)                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 100/22)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                        Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                            Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            measures necessary in order fully to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                            concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                            working time (1), the French Republic has failed to
that the Court should:
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and under that
                                                                            directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
     adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     measures necessary in order fully to comply with
     Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
     protection of young persons at work (1), the French                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     EC Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                        Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                        Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
                                                                        down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                        the French Republic having brought into force the
                                                                        necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                        referred to in the Commission's application.
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid              (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
French Republic having brought into force the necessary


title: Case C-39/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid — Subsidies for investment and employment — Obligation to recover — Non-compliance — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-39/06) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - State aid - Subsidies for investment and employment - Obligation to recover - Non-compliance - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)
   (2008/C 209/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 249 EC and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (notified under document number C(2003) 1520; Aid No C-62/00, ex NN 142/99) (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12) — Failure to take, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to recover aid which was declared incompatible with the common market
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to recover certain aid declared incompatible with the common market by Article 1(2)(d) and (g) of the Commission Decision of 30 October 2002, as it appears in Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf - Fourth Chamber - by order of that court of 26 March 1996, in the case of Fruko-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Case C-120/96)

text:
 22 . 6 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 180/ 19
 The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the                  Gerichtshof ( Austrian Supreme Court) of 11 March 1996 ,
 Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino, by an            which was received at the Court Registry on 16 April 1996 ,
 order of 14 December 1995 is inadmissible.                             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stephen Austin
                                                                        Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation v . Hiross
.(') OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .                                       Holding Aktiengesellschaft on the following question :
                                                                        Where proceedings are brought before an Austrian civil
                                                                        court by a British national who is also a national of the
                                                                        United States of America, who resides in that country ( in
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht              Florida ) and does not have any residence or assets in Austria ,
 Dusseldorf — Fourth Chamber — by order of that court of                against a joint-stock company whose registered office is in
 26 March 1996, in the case of Fruko-Handelsgesellschaft                Austria, by which he seeks to restrain that company from
               mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich                             selling or otherwise transferring shares in specified
                          ( Case C-120/96 )                             subsidiary companies to its Italian subsidiary company, or
                                                                        to subsidiaries of that company established in Italy, without
                            ( 96/C 180/39 )                             the approval of a qualified majority of three quarters of the
                                                                        general meeting of shareholders or, in the alternative, of a
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 simple majority of the general meeting of shareholders, does
 European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                  the fact that he has been ordered by the competent Austrian
 ( Finance Court ) Dusseldorf, Fourth Chamber, of 26 March              court ( of first instance ), on application by the defendant
 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 15 April           company pursuant to paragraph 57 ( 1 ) of the Austrian Code
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         of Civil Procedure, to provide security for costs in a specified
 Fruko-Handelsgesellschaft           mbH      v.    Hauptzollamt        sum constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality
 Emmerich on the following questions :                                  contrary to the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty ?
 1 . What degree of severity is required before there can be
      any finding of irreparable damage within the meaning of
      the second paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation
      ( EEC ) No 2913/92 0 ?
 2 . When is there damage within the meaning of the second              Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
      paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2913 /92 ?                                                                             ( Case C-123 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/41 )
 3 . What degree of probability must be held to exist for it to
      be found that there is a possibility of the occurrence of         An action against the Commission of the European
      the irreparable damage referred to in the second                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC )                    European Communities on 17 April 1 996 by Kingdom of
      No 2913/92 ?
                                                                        Spain, represented by Gloria Calvo Diaz, Abodago del
                                                                        Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 4 . If the answer to Question 1 is that sufficiently severe            Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E. Servais .
      damage is constituted by the mere possibility of a
      winding-up petition based on the disputed but not                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      suspended decision of the customs authority being
      presented with prospects of success in view of the tax            1 , annul the following Articles of Commission Directive
      debtor's       financial         circumstances,      should            96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 ( ! ):
      implementation of the decision be suspended if a
      winding-up petition could be presented even in the                     — Article 1 ( 3 ) in so far as follows :
      absence of the customs authority's decision ?
                                                                                — the second indent of Article 3 ( a ) inserted into
 (!) OJ No L 302 , 1992 , p . 1 .                                                   Directive 90/388/EEC ( 2 ),
                                                                                — the fifth ( last) indent of Article 3 ( a ) inserted into
                                                                                Directive 90/388/EEC ,
                                                                                — Article 3          (c)   inserted    into      Directive
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                               90/388/EEC,
 Gerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March 1996, in the
 case of Stephen Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities                              — Article 3          (d)   inserted    into      Directive
       Corporation v. Hiross Holding Aktiengesellschaft                             90/388 /EEC ,
                          ( Case C-122/96 )
                                                                             — Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 2 ), and
                             ( 96/C 180/40 )
                                                                             — Article 4 ;
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Oberster                       2 , order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-168/12: Action brought on 13 April 2012 — Georgias and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/33

         Action brought on 13 April 2012 — Georgias and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-168/12)
   2012/C 165/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Aguy Clement Georgias (Harare, Zimbabwe); Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd (Harare); and Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd (Harare) (represented by: M. Robson and E. Goulder, Solicitors, and H. Mercer, Barrister)

      Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order that the EU and the Commission and/or the Council make good the damage caused, resulting from the application of certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe, by compensating the applicants on the basis of Articles 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU in the following amounts or any other amounts that the Court shall decide:

                           (i)

                           469 520,24 euros (EUR) or equivalent to Trinity;

                           (ii)

                           5 627 020 euros (EUR) or equivalent to Georgiadis;

                           (iii)

                           374 986,57 euros (EUR) or equivalent to Senator Georgias;

                           (iv)

                           any sum that the Court deems appropriate to compensate Senator Georgias for the non-pecuniary damage claimed;

                           (v)

                           interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the above sums or any other rate that this Court may award;

               —

               Order an inquiry into the level of damage suffered by the applicants, if and to the extend that the Court finds it necessary;

               —

               Order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the present action, by which damages against the EU for non-contractual liability are claimed, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           following unlawful actions in the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) 412/2007 of 16 April 2007 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (JO L 101, p. 6):

                                       (i)

                                       manifest error of assessment of the facts combined with breaches of the rights of the defence and to an effective judicial remedy;

                                       (ii)

                                       misuse of power;

                                       (iii)

                                       breach of rights of the defence with regard to the renewals of the asset-freezing measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the damage incurred includes:

                                       (i)

                                       the loss of specific business opportunities through the extra-territorial application of the asset-freezing measures to all persons concerned doing business in the EU;

                                       (ii)

                                       personal stress due to the eventual loss of business in the EU;

                                       (iii)

                                       losses arising from the application of the said Regulation to Senator Georgias in May 2007 and upon renewal thereof and leading to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in consequence of him being excluded from the EU territory and subjected to asset-freezing.