title: Case C-234/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  16 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling of Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria)) — Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank & Schick GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Interpretation of Article 15 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Prize notification — Misleading advertising — Judgment on jurisdiction — Res judicata — Review on appeal — Legal certainty — Primacy of Community law — Article 10 EC)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling of Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria)) — Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank & Schick GmbH
   (Case C-234/04) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Interpretation of Article 15 - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Prize notification - Misleading advertising - Judgment on jurisdiction - Res judicata - Review on appeal - Legal certainty - Primacy of Community law - Article 10 EC)
   (2006/C 131/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rosmarie Kapferer

      Defendant: Schlank & Schick GmbH
   Re:
   REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Art. I0 EC — Duty of court of appeal to review and set aside a final first instance judicial decision on jurisdiction where there is an infringement of Community law — Interpretation of Art. 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/100 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p.1) — National law on consumer protection providing for a right to the prize supposedly won by the addressee of misleading advertising.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The principle of cooperation under Article 10 EC does not require a national court to disapply its internal rules of procedure in order to review and set aside a final judicial decision if that decision should be contrary to Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 09.10.2004.


               9.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/13

         Action brought on 13 February 2013 by the Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-1/13)
   2013/C 132/08
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 February 2013 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen I. Bakken, attorney at law and Thomas Nordby, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare void Article 1 of ESA Decision No 410/12/COL;

               2.

               order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012, to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the subsidised lease of optical fibres, previously operated on behalf of NATO, to Vodafone, is to be regarded as State aid.

               —

               The contested Decision was adopted as a result of a complaint from Míla ehf. concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iceland through subsidised lease for the use of two optical fibres which were previously operated by NATO. In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Iceland with Og fjarskipti (also referred to as ‘Vodafone’) of 1 February 2010 for the use and operation of an optical fibre did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and closed the case without further investigations.

               —

               The Applicant claims, inter alia, that:

                           —

                           the contested Decision rests upon an inadequate assessment of the facts and a misapplication of the relevant case law,

                           —

                           the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure for aid granted, and

                           —

                           the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for their findings.


title: Case C-35/04: Action brought on 30 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
20.3.2004             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/15
Action brought on 30 January 2004 by the Commission                    The Kingdom of Spain claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         of Luxembourg
                                                                       —     annul Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC)
                         (Case C-35/04)                                      No 1954/2003 (1) of 4 November 2003 on the manage-
                                                                             ment of the fishing effort relating to certain Community
                                                                             fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation
                         (2004/C 71/24)                                      (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC)
                                                                             No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, and
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                    —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 30 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with           Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:
      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
      certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
                                                                       —     the use of the reference period laid down in Articles 3, 4
      information society (1), or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                             and 6 of the Regulation in question, which refers to the
      inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
                                                                             period 1998 to 2002, discriminates against the Spanish
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             fleet on the basis of nationality, since for those years,
      Article 13 of that directive;
                                                                             pursuant to provisions in the Act of Accession of the
                                                                             Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal to the
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                  European Communities, the Spanish fleet’s access was
                                                                             limited to ICES areas V b, VI, VII and VIII a, b, d and e.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     the establishment of the sensitive area referred to in
                                                                             Article 6 is similarly discriminatory as regards the Spanish
The period for transposition of the directive expired on                     fleet, since the new sensitive area partly coincides with
22 December 2002.                                                            the so-called ‘Irish box’, where restrictions apply to the
                                                                             Spanish fleet in accordance with the Accession Treaty for
                                                                             the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal.
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
                                                                       Misuse of power: The protection of the sensitive area provided
                                                                       for in Article 6 should have been established by applying the
                                                                       procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 for the
                                                                       conservation of fishery resources through technical measures
                                                                       for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, which
Action brought on 2 February 2004 by the Kingdom of
                                                                       establishes measures linked to certain time-periods and areas
 Spain against the Council of the European Communities
                                                                       or to the use of certain more selective types of fishing gear in
                                                                       order to ensure the survival of those juveniles. Instead, on the
                         (Case C-36/04)                                pretext of the conservation of hake, the Regulation at issue
                                                                       seeks to maintain discrimination against the Spanish fleet in
                                                                       the waters around Ireland.
                         (2004/C 71/25)
An action against the Council of the European Communities              (1) OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1.
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 February 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-518/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France)) — Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet (Approximation of laws — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art — Directive 2001/84/EC — Persons entitled to receive royalties after the death of the author of the work of art — Concept of ‘those entitled’ — National legislation retaining, for a period of 70 years after the death of the author, the resale right solely for the benefit of the author’s heirs, to the exclusion of all legatees and successors in title — Whether that legislation is compatible with Directive 2001/84)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France)) — Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet
   (Case C-518/08) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art - Directive 2001/84/EC - Persons entitled to receive royalties after the death of the author of the work of art - Concept of ‘those entitled’ - National legislation retaining, for a period of 70 years after the death of the author, the resale right solely for the benefit of the author’s heirs, to the exclusion of all legatees and successors in title - Whether that legislation is compatible with Directive 2001/84)
   2010/C 148/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos

      Defendants: Société Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Interpretation of Article 6 and Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32) — Beneficiaries of the resale right after the death of the author of the work — Whether a national law which retains, for a period of 70 years, the resale right for the benefit of the heirs of the author, to the exclusion of all legatees and successors in title complies with Directive 2001/84/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which reserves the benefit of the resale right to the artist’s heirs at law alone, to the exclusion of testamentary legatees. That being so, it is for the referring court, for the purposes of applying the national provision transposing Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84, to take due account of all the relevant rules for the resolution of conflicts of laws relating to the transfer on succession of the resale right.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-454/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/11

         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission
   (Case T-454/17)
   (2017/C 330/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant:‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Scheid, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision ARES (2017) 2484833 of 16 May 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging incomplete assessment of the facts relevant for the determination of the case

                           —

                           The applicant complains that the defendant failed to take into account either the fact that the external auditor, Ernst & Young, belatedly corrected its original statement or the fact that the Project Coordinator declared that she had submitted the documents herself.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the facts of the case contradicts other reports

                           —

                           Further, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in its assessment of whether the applicant had complied with its contractual obligations, which contradicts the statements contained in the Final Audit Report and the OLAF Report.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant submits that it was only several years after the proceedings had been brought that it was granted access to crucial documents, which, it maintains, had been partially redacted.

                           —

                           The applicant also maintains that it had no legal obligation to tender or to observe strictly the tendering rules in the project.

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant asserts that it bears no liability for the actions of the European Union’s project partner.


               20.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/10

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 8 October 2013 in the case of Íslandsbanki hf. v Gunnar V. Engilbertsson
   (Case E-22/13)
   2014/C 81/09
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 8 October 2013 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (The Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 October 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Íslandsbanki hf. v Gunnar V. Engilbertsson, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts if the legislation in a State which is a party to the EEA Agreement permits contracts between consumers and suppliers for loans to finance real estate purchases to contain provisions stating that instalment repayments of the loan are to be linked to a predetermined index?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is that the index-linking of repayments of loans taken to finance real estate purchases is compatible with the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC, then the second question is: Does the Directive limit the discretion of the EEA State in question to determine, through legislation or by means of administrative regulations, the factors that are to cause changes in the predetermined index and the methods by which these changes are to be measured?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the discretion of the Member State referred to in that question, then the third question is: Is a contractual term regarded as having been individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive when: (a) it is stated in the bond which the consumer signs when taking the loan that his obligation is index-linked and the base index to be used when calculating price changes is specified in the bond; (b) the bond is accompanied by a payment schedule showing estimated and itemised payments to be made on the due dates of the loan, and it is stated in the schedule that these estimates may change in accordance with the indexation provision of the bond; and (c) both the consumer and the supplier sign the payment schedule at the same time and in conjunction with the signature of the bond by the consumer?

               4.

               Is the method of calculation of price changes in contracts for loans to finance real estate purchases regarded as having been explicitly explained to the consumer within the meaning of paragraph 2(d) of the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC when the circumstances are as described in the third question?

               5.

               Does a State that is party to the EEA Agreement have the option, when implementing Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, of either prescribing in domestic legislation that unfair contract terms within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive may be declared non-binding on the consumer, or prescribing in domestic legislation that such terms shall at all times be non-binding on the consumer?


title: Case C-6/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 12 January 2015  — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 12 January 2015 — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest
   (Case C-6/15)
   (2015/C 118/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TNS Dimarso NV

      Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, both in isolation and in conjunction with the scope of the principles laid down by European law concerning equality and transparency in the field of public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contract is awarded to the tenderer who submits the most economically advantageous tender from the point of view of the contracting authority, the contracting authority is always required to establish in advance, and indicate in the contract notice or contract documents, the method of assessment or the weighting rules, irrespective of their scope, predictability or commonness, in the light of which the tenders will be assessed in accordance with the award criteria or subcriteria,

               2.

               or, if no such general obligation exists, that there are circumstances, such as, inter alia, the scope, unpredictability or uncommonness of these weighting rules, in which this obligation does apply?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  22 November 2005  in Case C-384/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret in the criminal proceedings against Knud Grøngaard, Allan Bang (Directive 89/592/EEC — Insider dealing — Disclosure of inside information to third parties — Prohibition)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 22 November 2005
   in Case C-384/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret in the criminal proceedings against Knud Grøngaard, Allan Bang (1)

   (Directive 89/592/EEC - Insider dealing - Disclosure of inside information to third parties - Prohibition)
   (2006/C 36/01)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-384/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Københavns Byret (Denmark), made by Decision of 14 August 2002, received at the Court on 25 October 2002, in the criminal proceedings against Knud Grongaard, Allan Bang — the Court (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, S. von Bahr, (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Assistant Registrar, gave a judgment on 22 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 3(a) of Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider dealing precludes a person, who receives inside information in his capacity as an employees' representative on a company's board of directors or in his capacity as a member of the liaison committee of a group of undertakings, from disclosing such information to the general secretary of the professional organisation which organises those employees and which appointed that person as a member of the liaison committee, unless:

                           —

                           there is a close link between the disclosure and the exercise of his employment, profession or duties, and

                           —

                           that disclosure is strictly necessary for the exercise of that employment, profession or duties.

                     As part of its examination, the national court must, in the light of the applicable national rules, take particular account of:

                           —

                           the fact that that exception to the prohibition of disclosure of inside information must be interpreted strictly;

                           —

                           the fact that each additional disclosure is liable to increase the risk of that information being exploited for a purpose contrary to Directive 89/592, and

                           —

                           the sensitivity of the inside information.

               2.

               Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 precludes disclosure of inside information by the general secretary of a professional organisation to colleagues, such as those referred to in the third and fourth questions, except under the conditions set out in the reply to the first and second questions.
               As part of its examination, the national court must, in the light of the applicable national rules, take particular account of the criteria also set out in that reply.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.


title: Case T-203/01: Action brought on 4 September 2001 by Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 331/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                           INSTANCE
                    of 10 September 2001
                                                                          The applicant is a French tyre manufacturer charged, in the
in Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the                      contested decision, with imposing on its dealers general price
                   European Communities                                   conditions and other commercial practices that have been the
                                                                          subject of a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC
        (Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility)                    Treaty.
                        (2001/C 331/35)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                         The Commission challenges, first, the system of discounts,
                                                                          including quantitative rebates which, according to the Com-
                                                                          mission, constitute an abuse. The applicant claims that the
In Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl, established in Monte Vidon              contested decision misinterprets Article 82 EC. The Com-
Combatte (Italy), represented by W. Massucci, avocat, against             mission wrongly tries to claim that an undertaking in a
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Visag-                  dominant position may not take advantage of a system of
gio) — application for suspension of the operation of Com-                discounts, and the system of rebates for quantity is not, in
mission Decision C(2001) 1274 of 6 June 2001 cancelling the               practice, a ‘loyalty inducing’ abuse as the Commission claims.
aid granted to the company Euroagri under Commission                      Further the system does not have a partitioning effect, nor is it
Decision C(92) 3124 of 3 December 1992 in the context of                  unfair.
project No 92.IT.06.069 — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 10 September 2001, in which
he:
                                                                          Second, by the contested decision the Commission complains
1.   Dismissed the application for interim relief;                        that the applicant has introduced premiums, including a
                                                                          ‘service premium’ which, according to the Commission, is
2.   Ordered that the costs be reserved.                                  unfair. The applicant claims that the decision whether a
                                                                          condition is ‘unfair’ or not must be based on objective factors,
                                                                          and not on a mere subjective assessment by the Commission,
                                                                          and that the Commission has not shown that the rules
                                                                          implementing the service premium are unfair. The applicant
                                                                          further denies the allegedly ‘loyalty inducing’ nature of that
                                                                          premium. The fact that an undertaking obtains market infor-
Action brought on 4 September 2001 by Manufacture                         mation from its dealers cannot be regarded as an abuse, but as
Française des Pneumatiques Michelin against the Com-                      falling strictly within the bounds of normal competition.
           mission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-203/01)
                        (2001/C 331/36)                                   Third, the Commission considers that the conditions imposed
                                                                          on the dealers who are members of the ‘Friends of Michelin
                                                                          Club’ by the ‘Commercial Cooperation Agreement’ constitute
                  (Language of the case: French)                          an abuse. The applicant states that the purpose of the Club
                                                                          was to improve professional standards amongst dealers, and
                                                                          that the agreement is not in any way exclusive. The applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 denies that the member dealers are under a duty to achieve a
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                certain percentage of their turnover with sales of Michelin
European Communities on 4 September 2001 by Manufacture                   products, and claims that the Commission has infringed the
Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, established in Clermont-             rules on the taking of evidence. The applicant claims that the
Ferrand (France), represented by Jean-François Bellis, Markus             accusations of the Commission as regards the other obligations
Wellinger, Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, avocats.                   of the members of the Club are based on systematic prejudice
                                                                          against the applicant, a subjective and flawed interpretation of
                                                                          the facts, and on ignorance of economic reality.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the Commission Decision of 20 June 2001 in
     Case COM/E-2/36.041 — PO — Michelin relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC,                                Further the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to
                                                                          carry out a detailed analysis of the effects of the practices in
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               issue.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
Finally, the applicant challenges several aspects of the Com-              to BAI in the period 1995-1998. The applicant considered
mission’s decision fixing the amount of the fine imposed,                  that if the enquiry was limited to this period, a vast amount of
including the starting point adopted for calculating the basic             other State aid received by BAI would be ignored, and in
amount, the calculation of the duration of the infringement,               February 2001, the applicant submitted a formal complaint.
the increase in the basic amount for aggravating factors, and
the percentage reduction from the basic amount for mitigating
factors. It claims, inter alia, that the contested decision infringes      In December 2000, the applicant commenced a procedure
Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of                 against the Commission under Article 232 EC for its failure to
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.                                     act in relation to all the elements of the applicant’s complaint.
                                                                           That procedure is now the subject of Court proceedings (2).
                                                                           By the present action, the applicant requests the Court to
                                                                           annul the Commission Decision to the extent that it approves
                                                                           aid granted to BAI. It submits that the limitation period
Action brought on 7 September 2001 by P&O Ferries                          provided for in Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) does not
(Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of the                         apply to this case, and that the pre-1989 State aid identified in
                     European Communities                                  the complaint must be addressed expressly by the Commission.
                                                                           It alleges that the Commission is wrong in finding that the
                                                                           three shipowning companies (‘SPCs’) and BAI constitute a
                           (Case T-206/01)                                 single economic group and that charter payments between
                                                                           BAI and the SPCs are irrelevant to State aid laws.
                          (2001/C 331/37)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Further, the applicant submits that the Commission’s con-
                                                                           clusions in relation to the market economy investor test are
                                                                           wrong, and the applicant alleges that a number of guarantees
                                                                           and public sector cash grants and loans should have been
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  taken into account in the contested decision.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 September 2001 by P&O Ferries
(Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Julian Ellison and Mark               As far as the restructuring aid is concerned, the applicant
Clough QC of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).                     rejects the Commission’s findings that the SPCs/BAI economic
                                                                           group has made, and will make, satisfactory returns on equity
                                                                           and that BAI pays market rate charter to the SPCs. It
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                submits that these findings are based on wholly unreasonable
                                                                           assumptions as to the residual values of the vessels. The
—     annul under Article 230 (ex 173) of the EC Treaty the                applicant further rejects the Commission’s conclusions about
      Commission Decision C (2001) 1442 of 8 May 2001                      the relevant market, its finding that a withdrawal of BAI would
      concerning State aid implemented by France in favour                 leave the applicant in a monopoly position on the relevant
      of the Bretagne Angleterre Irlande company (save for                 market(s) and its assessment of the intensity of the restructur-
      Articles 1(2) and 1(3)) to the extent that it has approved           ing aid package.
      aid granted to BAI,
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has
                                                                           infringed a number of procedural requirements under the state
                                                                           aid rules, in particular the requirement to inform the parties
                                                                           concerned of the matters under investigation.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is a ferry operator which provides tourist and
freight ferry services on certain routes between France and the
United Kingdom in the western end of the Channel. Its main
competitor is the French ferry operator Bretagne-Angleterre-
Irlande SA, ‘Brittany Ferries’ (‘BAI’).                                    (1) Procedure No C 31/98.
                                                                           (2) Case T-49/01 (OJ 2001 C 161, p. 19).
                                                                           (3) Council Regulation(EC)No 659/1999 of 22.3.1999 laying down
The applicant brought its concerns in relation to BAI’s receipt                detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
of State aid informally to the Commission’s attention in                       (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
May 1998, very shortly after the Commission’s opening of the
formal procedure (1). It later became clear to the applicant that
the Commission was focusing exclusively on State aid awarded


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping measures - Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 - Calcium metal - Resumption of an anti-dumping investigation - Right to a fair hearing - Like product - Damage - Community interest - Statement of reasons - Misuse of powers - Unenforceability of an anti-dumping regulation against an importer)

text:
21.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/13
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            3. Orders the Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie
                                                                          et de l'EÂlectrochimie and the Commission to bear their
                     of 15 October 1998                                   own costs.
     in Case T-2/95: Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques v.
              Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 54, 4.3.1995.
(Anti-dumping measures Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88
Ð Calcium metal Ð Resumption of an anti-dumping
investigation Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Like product Ð
Damage Ð Community interest Ð Statement of reasons
Ð Misuse of powers Ð Unenforceability of an anti-
           dumping regulation against an importer)
                        (98/C 358/26)
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 30 September 1998
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     in Case T-154/96: Christiane Chvatal and Others v. Court
                                                                               of Justice of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Termination of service as a result of the
In Case T-2/95: Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques,                   accession of new Member States Ð Act adversely affecting
established in Annemasse (France), represented by Chantal            an official Ð Objection of illegality Ð Legality of
MomeÁge, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in            Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 Ð Equal
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val                    treatment Ð Infringement of essential procedural
Sainte-Croix, against Council of the European Union                  requirements Ð Prior consultation of the institutions and
(Agents: originally Ramón Torrent and Jorge Monteiro,                              of the Staff Regulations Committee)
then Mr Torrent and Yves Cretien, and subsequently Mr
Torrent, Antonio Tanca and Philip Bentley), supported by                                       (98/C 358/27)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Nicholas      Khan     and      Xavier     Lewis),    PeÂchiney
EÂlectromeÂtallurgie, established in Courbevoie (France),
and Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de
l'EÂlectrochimie, established in Paris, represented originally                        (Language of the case: French)
by Jacques-Philippe Gunther and Hubert de Broca, of the
Paris Bar, and subsequently by Mr Gunther alone, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch and Wolter, 11 rue Goethe Ð application for                   In Case T-154/96: Christiane Chvatal and Others, officials
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2557/94 of                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
19 October 1994 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty              represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
on imports of calcium metal originating in the People's              initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Republic of China and Russia (OJ L 270, 21.10.1994,                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
p. 27) and, in the alternative, for a declaration that that          Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Court of
regulation is unenforceable against the applicant Ð the              Justice of the European Communities (Agent: Timothy
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended                     Millett), supported by Council of the European Union
Composition), composed of: J. Azizi, President, B.                   (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) and
Vesterdorf, R. García-Valdecasas, R. M. Moura Ramos                  Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,           Johannes Steven van den Oosterkamp) Ð application for
and A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a           annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice
judgment on 15 October 1998, in which it:                            rejecting the applicants' requests that their names be
                                                                     entered on the list of persons having manifested their
                                                                     interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their
                                                                     service as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and
1. Dismisses the application;                                        Sweden, and for a declaration that Council Regulation
                                                                     (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995
                                                                     introducing special measures to terminate the service of
                                                                     officials of the European Communities as a result of the
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those              accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 280,
     of the Council, including those of the application for          23.11.1995, p. 1) is unlawful inasmuch as it applies only
     the adoption of interim measures, and the costs of the          to officials of the European Parliament Ð the Court of
     intervener PeÂchiney EÂlectromeÂtallurgie;                      First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,


title: Case T-110/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission (Arbitration clause — Financing contract for research and development projects — El Hierro contract — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Counterclaim by the Commission)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-110/10) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Financing contract for research and development projects - El Hierro contract - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of the declared expenses - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Counterclaim by the Commission)
   2012/C 217/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, and subsequently by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and D. Calciu, Agents, and by L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, submitted on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration, first, that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, second, that the Commission be ordered to issue a ‘credit note’ in the amount of EUR 84 120.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 84 120, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 26 January 2010 until full payment of that principal sum;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;

               4.

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

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-353/11: Action brought on 5 July 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/26

         Action brought on 5 July 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-353/11)
   2011/C 252/49
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and M. Thomannová-Körnerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary legal and administrative measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2010/5/EU of 8 February 2010 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include acrolein as an active substance in Annex I thereto (1), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The prescribed period for transposing the directive into domestic law expired on 31 August 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 36, p. 24


title: Case C-191/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli — lodged on  14 April 2006  — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo and Gianluca Damonte

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli — lodged on 14 April 2006 — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo and Gianluca Damonte
   (Case C-191/06)
   (2006/C 165/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Aniello Gallo and Gianluca Damonte
   Question referred
   Is Article 4(4 bis) of Law No 401/89 incompatible — with resultant effects on the domestic legal system — with the principles laid down in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty on establishment and freedom to provide cross-border services, also in light of the conflict between the interpretations in the decisions of the European Court of Justice (in particular in the judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031) and decision No 23271/04 of the Suprema Corte di Cassazione a Sezioni Unite (United Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation)? In particular, clarification is sought as to the applicability of the criminal provisions set out in the charge brought against Aniello GALLO and Gianluca DAMONTE in the Italian State.


title: Case T-61/05: Action brought on 10 February 2005 by Cornelius Rozemeijer and others against the Council of the European Union

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/30

         Action brought on 10 February 2005 by Cornelius Rozemeijer and others against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-61/05)
   (2005/C 106/64)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2005 by Cornelius Rozemeijer, residing in Alkmaar (Netherlands), Gaston Vaesken, residing in Sanary-sur-Mer (France) and Pierrette Vaesken, residing in Sanary-sur-Mer (France), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the applicants' May 2004 pension slips, with the effect of applying a weighting coefficient at the level of the capital of their country of residence, or at least a weighting coefficient adequately reflecting differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur expenses.

               2.

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those in Case T-35/05 Elisabeth Agne-Dapper and others v Commission.


title: Case T-286/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/57

         Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap v European Commission
   (Case T-286/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fondation de l'Institut de Recherche Idiap (represented by: G. Chapus-Rapin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               first, order that this action should have suspensory effect;

               —

               principally,

                           —

                           declare the action admissible;

                           —

                           allow the action;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul the European Commission's decision of 11 May 2010

                           —

                           declare eligible to be met by European Union external funding the costs of IDIAP researchers holding permanent contracts working on the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC programmes;

                           —

                           order that IDIAP is not obliged to repay EUR 98 042,45 in respect of DIRAC and EUR 251 505,76 in respect of AMIDA;

                           —

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

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay the expenses and fees of the lawyer acting for IDIAP;

               —

               alternatively,

                           —

                           declare the action admissible;

                           —

                           allow the action;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul the European Commission's decision of 11 May 2010;

                           —

                           order the European Commission to undertake a fresh audit of IDIAP and to assign it to an institution other than Treureva;

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay the expenses and fees of the lawyer acting for IDIAP.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant asks in essence that the General Court declare the eligibility of costs incurred in respect of researchers holding permanent employment contracts in relation to the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts within the framework of the specific research and technological development and demonstration programmes ‘Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area (2002-2006)’ and ‘Information Society Technologies (2000-2006)’.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that:

               —

               the European Commission's interpretation of the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts, to the effect that costs in respect of permanent employment contracts of researchers are ineligible ordinary operating costs and not additional costs linked to the projects, is arbitrary or at least unfounded, since:

                           —

                           the model contract on which the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC contracts are based does not exclude permanent employment contracts from eligible costs;

                           —

                           the link between researchers’ employment contracts and the AMIDA, BACS and DIRAC project is expressly mentioned in the employment contracts;

                           —

                           the researchers’ employment contracts exist solely because of the projects, the applicant having no funds of its own to pay the researchers outside of the projects;

                           —

                           the best way of ensuring that researchers can be released at the end of a project is a permanent contract, since under Swiss law (where the applicant is established) such a contract can be terminated at any time without cause on a brief period of notice;

               —

               the Commission's interpretation is contrary to the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, since that interpretation has been gradually altered;

               —

               alternatively, the audit procedure which is the subject of the contested decision is vitiated by irremediable defects which demand its annulment.


               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/1

         2011/C 46/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 38, 5.2.2011

      Past publications

      OJ C 30, 29.1.2011

      OJ C 13, 15.1.2011

      OJ C 346, 18.12.2010

      OJ C 328, 4.12.2010

      OJ C 317, 20.11.2010

      OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-124/10 P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2010 by the Commission against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2009 in Case T-156/04 Électricité de France (EDF) v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/16

      Appeal brought on 8 March 2010 by the Commission against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2009 in Case T-156/04 Électricité de France (EDF) v Commission
      (Case C-124/10 P)
      (2010/C 161/23)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Électricité de France (EDF), French Republic, Iberdrola SA

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2009, notified to the Commission on 16 December 2009, in Case T-156/04 EDF v Commission, in so far as the judgment:

                              —

                              annulled Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2003) 4637 of 16 December 2003 on the State aid granted to EDF and the electricity and gas industries (C 68/2002, N 504/2003 and C 25/2003);

                              —

                              ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Électricité de France (EDF)

                  —

                  refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration;

                  —

                  reserve the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The European Commission puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.
      By its first plea, the Commission submits that the General Court misinterpreted the facts of the case. Contrary to what is stated in the judgment under appeal, the French Republic did not in fact convert a tax claim into capital, but simply granted EDF aid in the form of a corporate tax exemption. The recapitalisation of EDF, itself, was not considered in the annulled decision to be State aid; the Commission only classified its tax implications as State aid.
      By its second plea, which comprises four parts, the appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law in taking the view that the French Government acted in the present case like a prudent private investor in a market economy.
      First, the appellant contests the General Court’s finding that the distinction between the State as shareholder and the State wielding public power depends primarily on the objective pursued by the State — in the present case, the recapitalisation of EDF — and not on objective and verifiable elements. First, in fact, the Court has repeatedly stated that Article 87(1) EC does not distinguish between the causes and objectives of State intervention. Second, a criterion based on the intention of the State would be particularly inappropriate for assessing the existence of State aid in so far as such a criterion is, by its very nature, subjective and subject to interpretations.
      Second, the Commission criticises the General Court for not having based its assessment on a comparative study of, on the one hand, the behaviour that a prudent private operator without privileges would have adopted in similar circumstances and, on the other hand, the behaviour of the French State in the present case, with its prerogatives as public authority.
      Third, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal fails to apply the principle of equal treatment between State enterprises and private undertakings, thus allowing for more favourable tax treatment of the State, including undertakings in which the State is not the only shareholder.
      Finally, according to the Commission, the General Court disregarded the rules governing the apportioning of the burden of proof as regards the applicability of the principle of the prudent private investor in a market economy, while taking into account facts that occurred after the date on which the annulled decision was adopted.


title: Case F-89/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — Arsène v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Starting point — Disregarding of periods of duty in the service of an international organisation — Application by analogy of the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Usual residence outside the State of employment before performing duties in the service of an international organisation — Article 81 of the Staff Regulations — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — Arsène v Commission
   (Case F-89/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Starting point - Disregarding of periods of duty in the service of an international organisation - Application by analogy of the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Usual residence outside the State of employment before performing duties in the service of an international organisation - Article 81 of the Staff Regulations - Action manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 398/93)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Lucia Arsène (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant the expatriation allowance and for an order that it pay that allowance, together with interest, from the date of the applicant’s entry into service.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Ms Arsène shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 62.


title: Case T-466/12: Action brought on 23 October 2012 — RFA International v Commission

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/7

         Action brought on 23 October 2012 — RFA International v Commission
   (Case T-466/12)
   2012/C 389/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul partially Commission Decisions C(2012) 5577 final, C(2012) 5585 final, C(2012) 5588 final, C(2012) 5595 final, C(2012) 5596 final, C(2012) 5598 final and C(2012) 5611 final of 10 August 2012, insofar as they refuse to reimburse the amounts of anti-dumping duties applied for, save for those amounts, the applications for which had been found inadmissible as lodged after the expiry of a statutory time limit;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           an error in law and manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a full deduction for SG&A and profit from the export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted, and in the Commission’s related finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation (1). To the extent the Commission may have relied on the rejection of the applicant’s claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicant contends that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that there was a changed circumstance in the sense of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, which warranted the application of a different methodology for the calculation of the final dumping margin. The applicant also invokes a consequential breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation in the Commission’s application of the new methodology, which is different from the respective methodology used in the original investigation.

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


title: Case C-179/10: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 28 September 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/45

      Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 28 September 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
      (Case C-179/10) (1)

      (2012/C 25/85)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-34/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fishing licences — Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 — Vessels Wiron III and Wiron IV — Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-34/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fishing licences - Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 - Vessels Wiron III and Wiron IV - Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)
   (2007/C 82/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and C. Diderich, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences (OJ 1993 L 341, p. 93) — Failure to withdraw the fishing licences granted to the vessels Wiron III and Wiron IV following their definitive transfer to Argentina
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-318/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Decision 2002/524/EC — Financial adjustments to expenditure by the Netherlands in the form of exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in the Netherlands — Regulation (EC) No 413/97)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-318/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Decision 2002/524/EC - Financial adjustments to expenditure by the Netherlands in the form of exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in the Netherlands - Regulation (EC) No 413/97)
   (2005/C 106/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-318/02 Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: H.G. Sevenster, S. Terstal and N.A.J. Bel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2002 C 305 of 07.04.2002.


title: Case T-10/06: Action brought on  11 January 2006  — PORTELA & C a , S.A. v OHIM

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/47

         Action brought on 11 January 2006 — PORTELA & Ca, S.A. v OHIM
   (Case T-10/06)
   (2006/C 60/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: PORTELA & Ca, S.A. (S. Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by João M. Pimenta, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Torres Quadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 in Case R-897/2004-1 granting registration of Community trade mark No 1 400 183 for the following products:

                           —

                           Class 5 — pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, preparations for destroying vermin;

                           —

                           Class 42 — medical services, services related to pharmaceutical laboratories; research in the field of medicine and laboratories.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: PORTELA & Ca, S.A.

      Community trade mark concerned: Bial (application No 1400183)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Juan Torres Quadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark BIAL

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division upheld in its entirety

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that OHIM infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by interpreting it incorrectly and that the contested decision is vitiated by infringements of essential procedural requirements (the mark was not properly presented in the opposition, the applicant was not provided, within the period prescribed by law, with the relevant elements of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based and the decision on costs was incorrect).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 19 March 1997 in Case T-21/96: Antonio Giannini v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Appointment - Vacancy Notice - Interests of the service)

text:
26 . 4 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 131 / 15
Dalheim ( Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by                  of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address               Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter,              Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1997, in
180 Route de Longwy, against Commission of the                        which it :
European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
Julian Currall and Alberto dal Ferro) — application, first,           1 . dismisses the application;
for annulment of the Commission's decision cancelling the
procedure under vacancy notice COM/116/94, and, in so
far as may be necessary, of its decision to reserve the post          2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs in their
forming the subject-matter of that vacancy notice for                       entirety.
nationals of new Member States and to publish notice of
open competition COM/A/929 ( Head of Unit V.F.3 ) and                 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
of its decision of 14 December 1995 rejecting the
applicant's complaint of 14 July 1995 , and, secondly, for
an order requiring the Commission to pay compensation
for the non-material harm suffered — the Court of First
Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-
Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it:                                                  ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 March 1997
 1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it             in Case T-21/96 : Antonio Giannmi v. Commission of the
     seeks annulment of the decision of the Commission to                                 European Communities (')
     publish notice of open competition COM/A/929 (Head
     of Unit V.F.3);                                                   (Officials — Appointment — Vacancy Notice — Interests
                                                                                of the service)
2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;                                            ( 97/C 131 /38 )
 3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                        (Language of the case: French)
 H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                       In Case T-21 /96 : Antonio Giannini, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo
                                                                       Locchi, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jeannot Biver,
                                                                       3 Rue de la Loge, against the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Julian Currall ) — application for, first, annulment of the
                       of 19 March 1997                                decisions appointing Mr X as head of the Unit
                                                                       'Negotiations and Management of Agreements on Textiles;
 in Case T-73/95 : Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira,               footwear; various' and rejecting the applicant's
     SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                candidature for that post, and, secondly, damages in
  (Social policy — European Social Fund — Assistance in                respect of the material and non-material loss which the
  the financing of vocational training measures — New                  applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those
 decision following a judgment of the Court of Justice —               decisions — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
 Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Prohibition               composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.
           of reformatio in pejus — Reasonable time)                   Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1997, in
                           ( 97/C 131 /37)                             which it :
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      1 . annuls the Commission 's decisions appointing Mr X as
                                                                             head of the Unit 'Negotiations and Management of
  In Case T-73/95 : Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira,                    Agreements on Textiles; footwear; various ' following
  SA, established at Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr                    the publication of Vacancy Notice COM/151 /94, and
 Joaquim Marques de Ascensão, of the Lisbon Bar, with an                     rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post;
  address for service at the office of Alberto de Sousa, União
  de Bancos Portugueses SA, 12 Rue de la Grève, against                 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ana
  Maria Alves Vieira and Günter Wilms ) — application for
  the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(94)1410/               3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
  9 of 12 July 1994, notified to the applicant on
  28 December 1994, concerning financial assistance from                (') OJ No C 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
  the European Social Fund for vocational training measures
  — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed


title: Case T-394/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014  — Turon & Ros v Commission

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/29

         Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Turon & Ros v Commission
   (Case T-394/14)
   2014/C 245/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Inmobiliaria Turon & Ros, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.


title: Case C-454/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Articles 12 and 13 — Administrative charges — Fee for rights to install facilities — Scope — Municipal legislation — Charge on mobile telephony antennae)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek
   (Case C-454/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 12 and 13 - Administrative charges - Fee for rights to install facilities - Scope - Municipal legislation - Charge on mobile telephony antennae))
   (2016/C 068/02)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA

      Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, being imposed on any natural or legal persons who are proprietors of a right in rem over, or of a right to operate, a mobile telephony antenna.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-143/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/32

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
   (Case T-143/17)
   (2017/C 129/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo;

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.


title: Case C-64/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 lodged on  7 February 2006  — Český Telecom a.s. v Czech On Line a.s.

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 lodged on 7 February 2006 — Český Telecom a.s. v Czech On Line a.s.
   (Case C-64/06)
   (2006/C 121/03)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Referring court
   Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 (Prague 3 District Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Český Telecom a.s.

      Defendant: Czech On Line a.s.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Was the national telecommunications regulator (Czech Telecommunications Office) entitled, in the form of an administrative decision after 1 May 2004, and thus after the day of the Czech Republic's accession to the European Communities, to impose on a telecommunications company with significant (dominant) market power in the telecommunications market an obligation to conclude a contract on the interconnection of its network with another operator?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
               Was the national regulator entitled to act in that way only under the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Access Directive), i.e. on the strength of a previous market analysis carried out in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and on the basis of the previous procedure described in Articles 6 and 7 of the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC
               or could it (for example in accordance with recital 15, Article 3, Article 4(1), Article 5(1)(a) and (4), Article 10(1) and (2) of the Access Directive) act in that way even without a previous market analysis?

               3.

               Can it have an impact on the answer to Question 2 that the application of a particular operator for the issuing of a decision on the compulsory interconnection of his network with the network of an operator with significant (dominant) market power was lodged with the national regulator, and the decisive part of the proceedings on that application before it took place, before 1 May 2004, i.e. before the day on which the Czech Republic acceded to the European Communities?

               4.

               To the extent that during the crucial period — from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005 — the Czech Republic had not sufficiently implemented the above-mentioned directives, is it possible directly to apply Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Access Directive), thus

                           4a.

                           are these directives (or is one of them) unconditional and sufficiently precise to be applied (by a court) in the place of national law?

                           4b.

                           is an operator with significant (dominant) market power in the telecommunications market entitled (actively subjectively legitimised) to rely, as a result of the incorrect transposition of Directives 2002/19/EC and 2002/21/EC, on their direct effectiveness, having regard to the question whether those directives (or one of them) do in any case protect the interests of that person who refuses to conclude an agreement on interconnection (in the area of ADSL service) with other domestic telecommunications operators (and who in the view of the national telecommunications regulator, which the court must also take into account, thus acts contrary to the aims of the new regulatory framework)?

                           4c.

                           Can that operator invoke the direct effectiveness of directives that have not been properly implemented (or of one of them), if (even where the conditions introduced in the directives are fulfilled) in the decision-making process of the national telecommunications regulator decisions are always made about the concrete conditions for interconnection of operators' sites, i.e. it concerns the imposition of concrete duties on individuals?


title: Case C-690/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos
   (Case C-690/13)
   2014/C 78/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Efetio Thrakis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E.

      Respondents: Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Do the substantive and procedural privileges conferred upon ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ by Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929, in conjunction with Article 26(1) of Law 1914/1990, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

                           (b)

                           Does the same restriction apply even if it is assumed that ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ continues to engage in activity of ‘public benefit’ under its statutes?

               2.

               If the answers to questions ‘1.a’ and ‘1.b’ are in the affirmative, should Greece have observed the procedure prescribed by Article 108(3) of that Treaty in order for the privileges in question to remain into force?

               3.

               In the instance in question, must this court not apply Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929 inasmuch as they may be contrary to Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU?


title: Case T-226/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — Prana Haus v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — Prana Haus v OHIM
   (Case T-226/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 285/72)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Prana Haus GmbH (Fribourg-en-Brisgau, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebies, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 April 2007 (Case R 1611/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the verbal mark PRANAHAUS as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Prana Haus GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 April 2000 in Case C-465/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln): Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV v Adolf Darbo AG (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive 79/112/EEC — Strawberryjam — Risk of deception)

text:
10.6.2000                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/5
2. Neither the reduction in working time, by reference to the                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     standard working time for day-work, awarded in respect of work
     performed according to a three-shift roster, nor the value of such
     a reduction, are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of                                   (First Chamber)
     calculating the salary used as the basis for a pay comparison for
     the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117.
     However, such a reduction may constitute an objective reason                                         of 4 April 2000
     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex such as to
     justify a difference in pay. It is for the employer to show that such
     is in fact the case.
                                                                               in Case C-465/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Oberlandesgericht Köln): Verein gegen Unwesen in
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                          Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV v Adolf Darbo AG (1)
                                                                               (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive
                                                                                79/112/EEC — Strawberryjam — Risk of deception)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (2000/C 163/08)
                             of 4 April 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-269/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Council of the European Union (1)
           (Regulation (EC) No 820/97 — Legal basis)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                             (2000/C 163/07)
                                                                               In Case C-465/98, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                       (Language of the case: French)                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                               Köln (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                               pending before that court between Verein gegen Unwesen in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV and Adolf Darbo AG — on
                      in the European Court Reports)                           the interpretation of Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Council Directive
                                                                               79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of
In Case C-269/97: Commission of the European Communities                       the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
(Agents: P. van Nuffel and G. Berscheid), supported by the                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and E. Waldherr) v                       ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1) — the Court (First
Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-C. Piris, J. Carbery                 Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,
and M. Sims) — application for annulment of Council                            P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,
Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a                      Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
system for the identification and registration of bovine animals               has given a judgment on 4 April 2000, in which it has ruled:
and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ 1997
L 117, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez
Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                 Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December
Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,                            1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,                       relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  for sale to the ultimate consumer does not preclude use of the
given a judgment on 4 April 2000, in which it:                                 description ‘naturally pure’ for a strawberry jam which contains the
                                                                               gelling agent pectin and traces or residues of lead, cadmium and
1. Dismisses the application;                                                  pesticides of the following levels: 0.01 mg/kg of lead, 0.008 mg/kg
                                                                               of cadmium, 0.016 mg/kg of procymidone and 0.005 mg/kg of
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the                vinclozolin.
     costs;
3. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.


title: Case T-239/10: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Italy v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Withdrawal of the contested debit note — Cessation of existence of the dispute — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-239/10) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Withdrawal of the contested debit note - Cessation of existence of the dispute - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 331/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Prete and A. Steiblytė, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of debit note No 3241001630 of 26 February 2010 concerning Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, incorporating a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance granted in application of Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, incorporating approval of the operational programme POR Puglia for the period 2000-2006, on the basis of Objective No 1.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.