title: Case T-304/01: Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Julia Abad Pérez and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 56/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 6 December 2001 by Antonio Enrico                     Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Julia Abad Pérez
 Tatti against Commission of the European Communities                   and Others against the Council of the European Union
                                                                            and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-296/01)
                                                                                (Case T-304/01)
                         (2002/C 56/23)                                                          (2002/C 56/24)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Commission of the European Communities was brought
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 6 December 2001 by Antonio                      on 7 December 2001 by Julia Abad Pérez and Others, all of
Enrico Tatti, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by            them established in Spain, represented by Miquel Roca Junyent,
Lucas Vogel, lawyer.                                                    Joan Roca Sagarra and Marta Pons de Vall Alomar, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that the Council and the Commission have acted
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                       unlawfully and are thus liable under Article 288 EC for
      16 August 2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by the                    having spread the BSE crisis within the territory of the
      applicant on 11 February 2001, challenging the decision                 European Union and, consequently, for the damage
      of the appeal assessor of 21 November 2000 refusing to                  alleged in the present application;
      review the applicant’s staff report;
                                                                        —     order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                              severally to pay compensation for the damage caused to
—     order the defendant to pay damages amounting to                         the applicants as a result of that crisis, quantified in the
      EUR 2 500;                                                              present application in the sum of 19 438 372,69 euros,
                                                                              and for the non-material damage suffered by them
                                                                              (amounting to a further 15 % over and above the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   aforementioned sum, that is to say, 2 915 755,80 euros);
                                                                              and
                                                                        —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the general provisions implementing
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as the reporting           The applicants are Spanish stockbreeders. They are claiming
procedure is irregular and in particular that the time-limit to         compensation for the damage and prejudice suffered as a result
which the administration should have adhered in drawing up              of the crisis concerning the so-called ‘mad cow disease’
the staff report was not observed. The applicant further claims         since the outbreak of the first case of bovine spongiform
infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, manifest           encephalopathy (BSE) in Spain on 22 November 2000, which
error of assessment and breach of the principle of non-                 plunged the Spanish stockbreeding sector into a serious crisis
discrimination. According to the applicant, his staff report was        from which it has still not yet managed fully to recover.
drawn up taking account of arbitrary rules for reporting on
staff which fettered subsequent reporting officers in their
discretion.                                                             According to the applicants, each stockbreeder is currently
                                                                        having to bear:
                                                                        —     the costs of removal and destruction of specified risk
                                                                              material (SRM);
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 56/13
—     in most cases, the extermination of the entire herd where          —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      a cow is found to be infected;
—     a decrease in consumption of beef and a lack of consumer
      confidence resulting from the unpopularity of veal in the
      market, with the consequent direct economic cost arising           Pleas in law and main arguments
      from the repercussions of reports in the media of the
      discovery of each new case of mad cow disease or of
      persons afflicted by Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in any               The applicant in the present case, a company incorporated
      Member State of the European Union; and                            under Belgian law carrying on business as importer into the
                                                                         Community of frozen fishery products originating in China,
—     the removal of the spinal column in calves aged over               has brought an action seeking compensation for damage
      12 months.                                                         allegedly suffered as a result of the immediate entry into force
                                                                         of Commission Decision 2000/86/EC of 21 December 1999
                                                                         laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery
The applicants maintain that the abovementioned damage, to               products originating in China and repealing Decision
which must be added the collateral and non-material damage               97/368/EC (1), with no transitional period applicable to goods
with which they have also been faced, results primarily from a           covered by contracts in force at the date of its publication.
lack of action, alternatively tardy and inadequate action, on            Annex B of that decision fundamentally amended the list of
the part of the Council and the Commission, which allowed                list of Chinese establishments approved for the export of
BSE to develop into the most serious agricultural and food               fishery products to the Community to such an extent that
crisis to affect the Union since its creation. The absence of a          almost all the suppliers with whom the applicant had con-
resolute policy to control that disease with a view to its total         cluded its contracts were no longer listed.
eradication, which allowed it to spread from the United
Kingdom throughout Europe, constitutes an unlawful act on
the part of the Community institutions in question, since those
institutions had the requisite powers, from the appearance of            From September 1999 to January 2000, the applicant com-
the very first signs of the crisis, to adopt all the legal measures      pany concluded with several Chinese suppliers a number of
needed to resolve it.                                                    purchase contracts for several containers of frozen prawns
                                                                         valued in excess of USD 2 000 000. Those contracts all
                                                                         stipulated that the goods were to be shipped between the end
                                                                         of September 1999 and mid-April 2000.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:
Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Thalassa Sea-                       —     that the Commission acted wrongly inasmuch as Decision
foods SA against Commission of the European Communi-                           2000/86/EC was not published until 2 February 2000,
                                ties                                           although it was of immediate application and should
                                                                               therefore have been published without delay, that is to
                         (Case T-305/01)                                       say by 22 December 1999 at the latest, in order to allow
                                                                               traders to take all appropriate measures in order to
                                                                               minimise their losses;
                          (2002/C 56/25)
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of proportionality in that the
                                                                               Commission itself, on the one hand, introduced tran-
                                                                               sitional measures, by Decision 2000/300/EC of 18 April
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      2000 amending Decision 2000/86/EC(2) and, on the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     other, published on 11 September 2000 a new list in
European Communities on 7 December 2001 by Thalassa                            which the supplier of the goods under the purchase
Seafoods SA, whose registered office is at Antwerp (Belgium),                  contracts which were annulled was again admitted as an
represented by Jean-Pierre Brusseleers, lawyer.                                approved establishment.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 L 26, p. 26.
—     order the Commission to pay it EUR 256 179,10 in                   (2) OJ 2000 L 97, p. 15.
      damages, together with interest at the statutory rate of
      8 % per annum as from the date on which notice was
      served;


title: Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens against the European Parliament (Case T-194/96)

text:
No C 9/20          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
and, secondly, by failing to take all due care or make                   levy due from the applicant or from the partnership of
every effort to be in a position to put forward a proposal               which he formed part, as the case may be, in respect
to the Council concerning the fixing of new weightings for               of the milk produced by them following the expiry of
Zaire for the periods from July 1993 to August 1996 .                    the non-marketing undertaking ( i.e. production in the
                                                                         milk marketing years 1989/1990 to 1995/ 1996
Lastly, the applicant maintains that, in his regard, the                 inclusive ), together with the interest which is due on
Commission acted contrary to the principles of non                      that sum to those entitled to claim payment of the said
discrimination against the applicant and treated him less                supplementary levy from the applicant (5 % as from
favourably than officials in other countries who benefited               1 . September 1996 ),
from weightings in excess of 100 and part of whose
salaries, over the same period, were subject to the                 — order the Community to pay him the sum of
appropriate weightings . Although the data for the period                HF1 58 695 (the sum resulting from the application of
from July 1993 to August 1996 were not entirely reliable                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 over the periods
on account of the looting in Kinshasa , that situation could             following the expiry of the non-marketing
in no circumstances justify discarding the weighting factor              undertaking, during which the applicant or his
indicating that the cost of living over the preceding                    predecessor in title, as the case may be, produced no
months had been more than twice the reference level . For                milk, together with compensatory interest from the
Russia, owing to the same problems in relation to local                  date when the damage arose until the date of
currency, with effect from 1 January 1994 a weighting                    judgment in the Mulder II case ( 19 May 1992 )), with
was fixed on the basis of an economic parity expressed in                interest thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum until
US dollars .                                                             settlement in full, as laid down in the judgment in
                                                                         Mulder II,
                                                                    — order the Community to pay him the sum of
                                                                         HFl 180 322,20, representing the costs of obtaining a
                                                                         substitute reference quantity equal to the reference
Action brought on 11 November 1996 by J. Antonissen                      quantity to which the applicant would have been
against the European Community, represented by the                       entitled pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation ( EEC )
Council and the Commission of the European                               No 857/84 had he, at the time, been operating the
                          Communities                                    holding in respect of which the non-marketing
                       ( Case T-179/96 )                                 undertaking was given by Mr Herbrink in 1979,
                           ( 97/C 9/36 )
                                                                    — order the Community to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the European Community, represented
by the Council and the Commission of the European                   These proceedings are connected with Case C-98/91
Communities, was brought before the Court of First                  Herbrink ( judgment of the Court of 27 January 1994 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 11 November                 The applicant is the successor of Mr Herbrink. Following
1996 by J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem ( the                    the judgment of the Court, Mr Herbrink was definitively
Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of           refused the allocation of a SLOM quota, on the ground
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                   that he no longer operated the original SLOM holding;
Luxemburg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                  the lease in respect of it was not extended, since he was
Guillaume .                                                         not in possession of a milk quota .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the Community is obliged to make good
    the damage which the applicant has suffered, and may
    suffer in the future, as a result of the refusal to             Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille
    allocate a specific reference quantity to the applicant                   Meskens against the European Parliament
    or his predecessor in title, Mr A. A. Herbrink, since                                    Case T- 194/96 )
    the termination on 17 May 1984 of the non-marketing
    undertaking given by Mr Herbrink pursuant to                                               ( 97/C 9/37 )
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1087/77, on the sole
    ground that, since 1987, for reasons which cannot be                             (Language of the case: French)
    attributed to them, neither the applicant nor Mr
    Herbrink has continued to operate, either wholly or in          An action against the European Parliament was brought
    part, the holding on which Mr Herbrink produced                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
    milk prior to giving the aforementioned non-marketing           Communities on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens,
    undertaking,                                                    residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                                                                    Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels
— order the Community to pay him the sum of                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at the
    HFl 258 565,38 , corresponding to the supplementary             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL ., 30 rue de Cessange.
 ---pagebreak---  11 . 1 . 97         I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 9 /21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           The applicant states that, following those judgments, she
                                                                      took several steps to obtain the adoption of appropriate
— annul the decision of the European Parliament                       measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of
      rejecting the applicant's request of 2 October 1995             First Instance of 8 November 1990, but that all those
      that it take appropriate measures to comply with the            steps were in vain .
      judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November
      1990 in Case T-56/89,                                          In compliance with the judgment of 8 November 1990,
                                                                     the Parliament paid the applicant Bfrs 50 000 . The
— order the European Parliament to pay her
      Bfrs 1 000 000 in compensation for the material and
                                                                     applicant maintains, however, that, since that judgment
      non-material damage suffered by her,
                                                                     and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 August
                                                                      1994, the Parliament has not taken appropriate
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs .                   compliance measures . The unlawfulness found by the
                                                                     Court of First Instance therefore continues to produce its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  effects, despite the judgment of annulment.
By judgment of 8 November 1990 ('), the Court of First               The applicant maintains that she has thus been kept in a
Instance annulled the decision of the European Parliament            state of uncertainty regarding her professional future for
to reject the application of the applicant and others for            more than five years, and that such a situation constitutes
Internal Competition B/164 . By judgment of 8 October                maladministration for which the Parliament is liable .
1992 ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance held the Parliament's
decision not to take any specific measure vis-a-vis the              (') Case T-56/89 Bataille and Others v. Parliament [ 1990 ] ECR II
applicant to comply with that judgment unlawful . The                      597 .
Parliament's appeal against that latter judgment was                 ( 2 ) Case T-84/91 Meskens v. Parliament [ 1992] ECR 11-2335 .
dismissed by the Court of Justice ( 3 ).                             ( 3 ) Case C-412/92 P Parliament v. Meskens [ 1994] ECR 1-3757.


title: Case C-206/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2011 — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2011 — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb
   (Case C-206/11)
   2011/C 226/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Georg Köck

      Respondent: Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

      Question referred

   Do Articles 3(1) and 5(5) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) or other provisions of that directive preclude a national provision under which the announcement of a clearance sale without the authorisation of the competent administrative authority is not permitted and for that reason must be prohibited in court proceedings, without it being necessary in those proceedings for the court to consider whether such a commercial practice is misleading, aggressive or otherwise unfair?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 333/21
Communities in case T-14/98 between Heidi Hautala, Member                     Removal from the register of Case C-316/98 P (1)
of the European Parliament, supported by the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the                                        (1999/C 333/46)
European Union, supported by the French Republic, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ties on 22 September 1999 by the Council of the European                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Union, represented by Mrs Jill Aussant, Director, Mr Giorgio            from the register of Case C-316/98 P: Union Européenne de
Maganza, Director, and Mr Martin Bauer, Legal Adviser, acting           l’Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Council of the European Communities.
office of Mr Alessandro Morbilli, Director of the Legal Affairs
Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard
Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                             (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
      19 July 1999 by which it:
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-335/98 (1)
      — annuls the Council’s decision of 4 November 1997
          refusing the Respondent access to the report of the                                    (1999/C 333/47)
          Working group on Conventional Arms Exports;
                                                                        By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
      — orders the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings;         the register of Case-335/98: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Italian Republic.
— decide to give final judgment in the matter, dismiss the
      Application at First Instance as unfounded and order the          (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
      Applicant at First Instance to pay the costs of the
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
— decide on the costs of this appeal as it sees fit.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-388/98 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 333/48)
The Council’s appeal is based on the ground that the Court of
First Instance committed a fundamental error of law in                  By order of 11 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
interpreting Article 4(1) of the decision (2) on public access to       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Council documents as legally requiring the Council to consider          the register of Case C-388/98: Commission of the European
whether access should be given to parts of a document to                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
which access is requested.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
According to the Council, the Court of First Instance:
i)    incorrectly construed the legal effect of the decision on
      public access to Council documents;
ii) misconstrued the objective of the decision on public access                Removal from the register of Case C-338/96 (1)
      to Council documents;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/49)
iii) misapplied the principle of proportionality.
                                                                        By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case C-338/96 (reference for a preliminary
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 27.                                           ruling from Genova): Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Amministra-
(2) Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20.12.1993 (OJ L 340,                 zione delle Finanze dello Stato.
     31.12.1993, p. 43).
                                                                        (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.


title: Case T-237/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lactimilk (BELLRAM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BELLRAM — Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM and Ram — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Opposition period)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lactimilk (BELLRAM)
   (Case T-237/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BELLRAM - Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM and Ram - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Opposition period)
   2013/C 55/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Träger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2011 (Case R 1154/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk, SA and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case C-294/08: Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/5

         Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-294/08)
   (2008/C 247/07)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that,

                           —

                           by requiring, on registration of imported vehicles for which there is proof of type-approval with regard to roadworthiness by another Member State, that, at the time of that type-approval with regard to roadworthiness, a vehicle complies with the technical requirements in force at that time in the Czech Republic and

                           —

                           by requiring, in the event of non-fulfilment of those requirements, a test to verify whether the vehicle complies with the technical requirements in force for the given category of vehicles in the Czech Republic at the time of the vehicle's manufacture,

                     the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Czech Law, the conditions for the registration of second-hand vehicles imported into the Czech Republic from other Member States where they were previously registered, are laid down by Law No 56/2001 Coll. (1). Article 35(1) and (2) of Law No 56/2001 Coll. lays down conditions for the registration of individually imported second-hand vehicles for which there is proof of type-approval with regard to roadworthiness by another Member State.
   The Czech authorities approve the roadworthiness of such a vehicle provided that the vehicle, its systems, structural parts or independent technical units fulfilled, at the time of type-approval with regard to roadworthiness in another EU Member State, the technical requirements in force at that time in the Czech Republic and laid down in the implementing legislation (Article 35(1) of Law No 56/2001 Coll.).
   If, at the time of type-approval with regard to roadworthiness in another Member State, the vehicle, its systems, structural parts or independent technical units did not fulfil the conditions in force at that time in the Czech Republic and laid down in the implementing legislation, the appropriate authority is to decide on approval of roadworthiness for the vehicle on the basis of the technical report issued by the testing centre. The testing centre is to issue a technical certificate if the vehicle fulfils the technical conditions in force for the given category of vehicle in the Czech Republic at the time of the vehicle's manufacture (Article 35(2) of Law No 56/2001 Coll.).
   It follows from Article 35(1) and (2) of Law No 56/2001 that the roadworthiness of all second-hand vehicles, for which another Member State has issued a certificate of type-approval with regard to roadworthiness, is always re-examined in the light of Czech law. That approach is, in the Commission's view, in breach of the principle of the freedom of moment of goods, according to which goods placed on the market in accordance with the legislation of one Member State must be admitted to the markets of all other Member States. The Czech legislation does not in any way take account of the results of the roadworthiness test carried out on the vehicles in question in another Member State, thereby constituting an infringement of Article 3(2) of Council Directive 96/96/EC.
   In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the Czech legislation constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 28 EC. That measure is incapable of procuring the protection of the health and life of humans and the environment or road safety and is thus not justified by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or by the case-law of the European Court of Justice.

      (1)  Law No 56/2001 Coll. on conditions for operating vehicles on roads and on changes in Law No 168/1999 Coll. on liability insurance for damage caused by operating a vehicle and on changes in various related laws (‘Law on liability insurance for operating a vehicle’), as amended by Law No 307/1999 Coll.


title: Case T-348/05: Action brought on 14 September 2005 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat/Council

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/31

         Action brought on 14 September 2005 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat/Council
   (Case T-348/05)
   (2005/C 281/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo Cheptesk, Russia) [represented by: B. Servais, Y. Melin, lawyers]

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 (1) of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, insofar as

                           —

                           it extends the existing anti-dumping measures to products other than the product under investigation in breach of Article 1(1), Article 1(2), Article 3(2), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation; and

                           —

                           it was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of defence and procedural rights in that (i) the applicant was not granted the hearing it had requested under Article 6(5) of the basic Regulation and (ii) the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recommend the modification of the scope of the measures as required by Article 20 of the basic Regulation, and that, had it not been for these breaches, the outcome of the anti-dumping investigation might have been different; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a Russian company specialising in the production of fluoroplastics, chemicals, medical products and fertilisers, including ammonium nitrate. The applicant exports ammonium nitrate and other fertilisers to the Community.
   It seeks the annulment of the contested Regulation on the grounds that it violates Articles 1(1), 1(2), 3(2), 4(1) and 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) in that it extends the existing anti-dumping measures to products which are not the product concerned.
   It further contends that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of its right of defence and of its procedural rights in that (i) it was not granted the hearing it had requested pursuant to Article 6(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and (ii) the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recommend the modification of the scope of the measures as required by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

      (1)  OJ L 160, 23/06/2005, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. OJ L 56, 06/03/1996, p. 1


title: Case T-381/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Animal subsidies and rural development — Inadequate national management and control system)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-381/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Animal subsidies and rural development - Inadequate national management and control system)
   (2008/C 272/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M.Fiorilli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C.Cattabriga and L.Visaggio, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 250, p. 21), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of animal subsidies and rural development.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-13/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Post Bank v Council

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/32

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Post Bank v Council
   (Case T-13/11)
   2011/C 63/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Bank (Tehran, Iran), (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 34, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP (1) of 25 October 2010 and paragraph 40 of section B to the Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

               —

               Declare article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) of 26 July 2010 and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annulment of paragraph 34 of section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October and of paragraph 40 of section B to Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and for annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 insofar as they relate to the applicant.
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant claims that the court has jurisdiction to review paragraph 34, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 40, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law.

               In addition, the specific reasons for the listing of the applicant are wrong and the requirements of Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and of Articles 16(2)(a)(b) and 16(4) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 are not met. Those provisions should be held inapplicable to the applicant. The Council made a manifest error in fact and erred in law. Therefore paragraph 34, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 as well as paragraph 40, section B, of the Annex VIII to Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 should be annulled.

               In support of this application, it is also argued that the 2010 Regulation and the 2010 Decision violate the applicant’s rights of defence and, in particular, its right to have a fair hearing since it did not receive any evidence or documents to support the allegations of the Council, and since the allegations made in 2010 Decision and Regulation are very vague, unclear and arguably impossible for Post Bank to respond to.

               Furthermore, Article 24(3) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP requires the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and article 24(4) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP provides for the review of the decision when observations are submitted. The Council violated both provisions. Since Article 24(3) and 24(4) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP are also repeated in Article 36(3) and 36(4) of Council Regulation No 961/2010, a violation of the latter is also taking place.

               It is also claimed that the Council, in its assessment of the applicant’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration.

               In addition, the Council, in its assessment of the applicant’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations.

               The applicant also claims that the Council has violated the applicant’s right of property and the principle of proportionality. Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 should be declared inapplicable to the applicant.

               Moreover, the applicant claims that Council Regulation No 961/2010 violates Article 215(2) and (3) TFEU, as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU.

               Finally, the applicant contends that the 2010 Regulation and the 2010 Decision were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

      (1)  Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).


title: Action brought on 3 July 1997 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-242/97)

text:
 C 271 /6                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     6 . 9 . 97
the same regulation provides that the results of the                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
 verification, by either of the procedures allowed, are to be
 used for the purposes of applying the provisions governing
 the customs procedure under which the goods are placed .
                                                                          1 . annul Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April
                                                                               1997 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
                                                                               Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993
 In a first instance it was noted that part of the goods did                   on the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
 not correspond to those indicated in the declaration. The                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF) in so far as it
 Commission considered that ' the facts known indicate that
                                                                               disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community
 the consignment exported was of uniform composition',                         financing for the sum of Bfrs 413 309 611 by way of
 and therefore made a financial adjustment for the whole                       expenditure incurred for the advance payment of
consignment. However, the Spanish authorities were only                        export refunds;
 able to make an overall adjustment in respect of the
 declaration made by the person concerned on the basis of
 facts proved incontestably, not mere suspicions or fears.
                                                                          2. order the Commission to pay the costs .
 In a second instance, the Commission accepted the
 Spanish investigation as evidence that part of the                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
declaration was incorrect but did not accept it as regards
the part which could not be proved false.
                                                                          — Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation ( EEC) No 729/
Export refunds in relation to processing                                       70 and Article 190 of the EC Treaty and infringement
contracts for fruit and vegetables ( citrus )                                 of the principle that due care should be taken : in
                                                                              preparing and adopting the contested decision, the
                                                                              Commission did not cooperate fairly with the Belgian
                                                                              authorities; furthermore, in inquiring into the data
The Commission perceived a fraud in the fact that a
                                                                              provided to it, the Commission did not set to work
processor of citrus fruits, as a result of a change of dates
                                                                              with the requisite care . The factual data produced by
negotiated ex post facto, obtained a lower minimum price                      the Belgian authorities and the mistakes and
but at the same time maintained the higher rate of aid
                                                                              inaccuracies identified by the applicant in the
which would have been appropriate had the contract date
                                                                              Commission's final conclusions have been disregarded
not been changed. But that was not the true position. The
                                                                              by the Commission without stating any grounds for so
processor obtained, in relation to the contracts of which
                                                                              doing. As a result, the Commission is in breach of the
the dates were changed, the lower rate of aid available for
                                                                              obligation of bona fide cooperation ( Article 5 of the
operations on or after 12 February 1993 , not the earlier
rate .
                                                                              EC Treaty, as given practical effect by the so-called
                                                                              ' Belle reform' and the conciliation procedure )* and of
                                                                              the principle that due care should be taken.
(') OJ L 139 , 30 . 5 . 1997, p . 30 .
( 2 ) OJ L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                              If the Commission had seriously and objectively
                                                                              inquired into the data and observations submitted by
                                                                              the Belgian authorities, its assessment of the risk
                                                                              connected with the deficiencies found would have been
                                                                              different and it would have had either to refrain in
                                                                              whole or in part from making a flat-rate correction or
Action brought on 3 July 1997 by the Kingdom of                               to apply a lower correction factor.
Belgium against the Commission of the European
                               Communities
                            ( Case C-242/97)                             — Infringement of Regulations ( EEC ) Nos 729/70 and
                              ( 97/C 271 /08 )                                1732/72 and of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: what is
                                                                              involved in this case is not expenditure which was
                                                                              wrongly incurred but a flat-rate sanction in the form
                                                                              of a refusal of a percentage of the expenditure
An action against the Commission of the European                              incurred imposed on the ground that the supervisory
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                        system set up in the Member State concerned is
the European Communities on 3 July 1997 by the                                allegedly inadequate. In the applicant's view, the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder,                              Commission is only entitled to impose flat-rate
General Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                           sanctions on the ground of perceived shortcomings in
Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, and Hans                           the supervisory systems set up by Member States
Gilliams, of the Brussels Bar, acting as Agents, with an                      where three ( cumulative ) conditions are satisfied, that
address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy,                     is to say, where the Commission can produce sufficient
4 Rue des Girondins .                                                         evidence that:
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 271 /7
     — the supervisory system as a whole exhibits                       Action brought on 7 July 1997 by the Portuguese
             deficiencies ( in contrast, isolated shortcomings          Republic against the Commission of the European
             which do not say anything about the operation of                                     Communities
             the system as a whole have to be treated                                           Case C-246/97 )
             differently, namely by refusing Community
             financing for a number of identified transactions in                                ( 97/C 271 /09
             respect of which the conditions for the grant of
             financing are not met),
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
     — the deficiencies must be sufficiently serious ( the              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
             seriousness of the deficiencies should be assessed         the European Communities on 7 July 1997 by the
             partly in the light of the complexity of the               Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Joao Mota de
             Community provisions which the Member States               Campos, Dr Luis Ines Fernandes and Dr Maria Lufsa
             are having to implement and of the risk that               Duarte, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
             certain sums were wrongly incurred ), and                  Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
     — it may reasonably be considered that the
             deficiencies have resulted in wrongful expenditure         The applicant claims that the Court should :
             or even fraud ( and hence in a loss for the
             EAGGF); in addition, the flat-rate corrections
             should be commensurate with the risk so found .            — declare null and void the Commission's Decision
                                                                            requiring the Portuguese Government to suspend aid
                                                                            in the shape of a State guarantee granted to the
     In the applicant's view, the Commission was not                        undertaking       EPAC       —      Empresa    para     a
     entitled, on the basis of the verifications carried out by             Agroalimenta^ao e Cereais, SA,
     EAGGF officials, ( i ) to consider that the Belgian
     supervisory system as a whole exhibited deficiencies,
      ( ii ) to impose linear corrections and apply to the              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     applicant the most severe correction factor of 10%
     and ( iii ) to apply the linear correction to all
     expenditure relating to the sectors concerned. In any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     event, the summary report does not contain sufficient
     reasons to justify such a correction .
                                                                        — lack of legal basis,
— Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, the
     principle patere legem quam ipsi fecisti and Article 190           — unlawful adoption of the interim measure by the
     of the EC Treaty:                                                      Commission .
     Assuming that there is justification for applying a flat              — lack of legal basis : despite the fact that neither the
     rate correction in this case ( which is denied ), it might                 Treaty nor secondary legislation provides for the
     at least be expected that the Commission would                             adoption of interim measures in the context of
     comply with its own guidelines, in particular the rules                    proceedings under Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the
     set out in its document No IV/216/93 , when carrying                       power to adopt them was afforded to the
     out that correction .                                                      Commission by the case-law of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance . However, the Commission must not
                                                                                impose upon a Member State an inappropriate and
— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of                       fundamental measure whose nature and effect is
     the duty to state reasons:                                                 that of a definitive measure. When exercising its
                                                                                quasi-judicial power to take interim measures, the
                                                                                Commission cannot dispense — as it has done —
     Neither the contested decision nor the summary report                      with verifying whether there is a prima facie case,
     set out reasons justifying a flat-rate correction of 10%                   since to do so makes its decision manifestly
     in      the   beef and    veal  sector when    the  flat-rate              arbitrary. Moreover, the Commission took no
     correction applied in respect of that sector as regards                    account whatsoever of the damage which the
     the Netherlands, Germany and France is only 5% .                           interim measure imposed could entail for the
     Not only are no reasons given for that difference in                       Portuguese State, EPAC and its creditor banks.
     treatment, but also it is not based on objective criteria .                Finally, the Commission cannot extend the exercise
     The evidence submitted by the applicant in that                            of the extraordinary powers conferred by the
     respect to the Commission in the application for                           Court of First Instance to situations not provided
     conciliation was simply ignored by the Commission.                         for in that case-law by requiring that the grant of
                                                                                a State guarantee ( without transfer of State
                                                                                resources ), rather than non-existent payments, be
                                                                                suspended,


title: Case C-60/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht lodged on  3 February 2006  — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht lodged on 3 February 2006 — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern
   (Case C-60/06)
   (2006/C 131/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Bavarian Higher Social Court) (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grete Schlepps

      Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern (German Pension Insurance Scheme, Upper Bavaria)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the benefit on 1 January 1994 — also the taking up of residence in Austria?

               2.

               If so, are that provision and point C Germany (1) of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible with higher-ranking European law, in particular the requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39 EC in conjunction with Article 42 EC?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 12 March 2002 in Case C-160/98 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Eridania SpA v Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1997/98 — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 and Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81)

text:
18.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 118/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1997 L 170,
                                                                             p. 3) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June
                                                                             1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     sector (OJ 1971 L 177, p. 4), as amended by Council
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 (OJ 1995
                                                                             L 110, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
                           12 March 2002                                     C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 12 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
in Case C-160/98 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Giudice di pace di Genova): Eridania SpA v Azienda
          Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (1)
(Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1997/98 —
Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy —                  Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no factor of
Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 and Regulation                        such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC)
                        (EEC) No 1785/81)                                    No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997 fixing, for the 1997/98 marketing
                                                                             year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
                                                                             price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the
                          (2002/C 118/01)                                    amount of compensation for storage costs or of Council Regulation
                                                                             (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation
                                                                             of the markets in the sugar sector, as amended by Council Regulation
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
In Case C-160/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Giudice di Pace
di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Eridania SpA and Azienda
Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj, on the validity of
Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June
1997 fixing, for the 1997/98 marketing year, the derived
intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for
raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the


title: Case C-147/03: Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
10.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/21
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                    Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                  of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                         (Case C-137/03)
                                                                                (Case C-147/03)
                         (2003/C 112/36)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/37)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
represented by M. Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service.                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Denis Martin, of its Legal Service, with an
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            address for service in Luxembourg.
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Directive 2000/77/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 14 December 2000 amending Council
      Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
      organisation of official inspections in the field of animal             to ensure that holders of secondary school leaving
      nutrition, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its               examination certificates obtained in other Member States
      obligations under the Treaty and that Directive;                        have access to higher or university education in Austria
                                                                              on the same conditions as holders of leaving examination
                                                                              certificates obtained in Austria, the Republic of Austria
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 149
                                                                              and 150 EC;
                                                                        2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be               Pleas in law and main arguments
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State to which it is addressed.
                                                                        The effect of the rules governing admission to the Austrian
                                                                        system of higher or university education is that holders of
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are           secondary school leaving examination certificates obtained in
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,        other Member States must demonstrate, not only that they
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of that             satisfy the general conditions for admission to higher or
Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                        university education, but also that they fulfil the specific
Community.                                                              conditions for direct access to their chosen subject which have
                                                                        been laid down by the Member State of issue of those leaving
                                                                        examination certificates. Such rules are contrary to Articles 12,
The Hellenic Republic does not dispute the fact that it must            149 and 150 EC. Firstly, as is not disputed, the admission of
take measures to comply with the above Directive.                       holders of leaving examination certificates obtained in other
                                                                        Member States to certain fields of study at Austrian higher-
                                                                        education colleges or universities is made subject to a condition
The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not yet             which does not apply to holders of leaving examination
taken the appropriate measures to incorporate the directive in          certificates obtained in Austria. Secondly, by referring to
question fully into the Greek legal order.                              the legal requirements governing admission to higher and
                                                                        university education which are applicable in the State of origin,
                                                                        those rules lead to discrimination against nationals of other
( 1) OJ L 333 of 29.12.2000, p. 81.
                                                                        Member States.


title: Case F-77/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Arroyo Redondo v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/65

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Arroyo Redondo v Commission
   (Case F-77/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/105
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fernando Arroyo Redondo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to grade AD10 under the 2009 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision, published on 20 November 2009, not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted from grade AD9 to AD10 under the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               as a consequence of that annulment, undertake a further comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and those of the other candidates under the 2009 promotion exercise and promote the applicant to AD10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2009 together with the payment of interest on the arrears of pay at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 1 March 2009, increased by 2 points, without however challenging the promotion of the other officials promoted whose names appear on the list published on 20 November 2009;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-138/14: Action brought on 27 February 2014  — Chart v EEAS

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/30

         Action brought on 27 February 2014 — Chart v EEAS
   (Case T-138/14)
   2014/C 159/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Randa Chart (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that EEAS is liable for the harm suffered by the applicant between October 2001 and present by reason of the unlawful conduct of the European Union Delegation in Cairo and the EEAS;

               —

               In consequence:

                           —

                           principally, pay Ms Chart the sum of EUR 509 283,88 (five hundred and nine thousand and two hundred and eighty-three euros and eighty-eight cents) as damages in respect of the harm suffered, subject to any increase during the proceedings;

                           —

                           in the alternative, pay Ms Chart the sum of EUR 380 063,81 (three hundred and eighty thousand and sixty-three euros and eighty-one cents) as damages for the harm suffered since 30 October 2008, subject to any increase during the proceedings;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, a former member of the local staff at the European Union Delegation in Egypt, seeks compensation for a loss which she suffered as a result of unlawful conduct by the European administration consisting of its failure to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the applicant to the social security services of the Egyptian administration after her resignation. That fact prevents the applicant from returning to work in Egypt.
   As regards the defendant’s unlawful conduct complained of, the applicant raises four pleas in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, infringement of the principle of reasonable time, infringement of Egyptian law and infringement of the right to privacy.
   The applicant argues that the defendant’s failure to act causes her serious harm and seeks compensation for both the material and non-pecuniary harm.


title: Case F-20/16: Action brought on 1 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/32

         Action brought on 1 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-20/16)
   (2016/C 383/42)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Żołyniak, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013 of 27 May 2014 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Civil Service Tribunal to:

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013 of 27 May 2014 refusing to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list;

               —

               require the appointing authority to implement the judgment by adding the applicant’s name to the reserve list established on the basis of that open competition subject to the period of validity of the addition being equal to the period of validity of the list;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the parties in accordance with the prescribed rules.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica v Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica (Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have not been organically produced)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica v Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica (1)

   (Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs - National legislation authorising the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have not been organically produced)
   (2005/C 217/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-107/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by decision of 1 December 2003, received at the Court on 1 March 2004, in the proceedings between Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica and Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended to include livestock production by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 was to be interpreted as not precluding products which were not organically produced from bearing, in Spain, the indication ‘biológico’ or its derivative ‘bio’ in the labelling, advertising material and commercial documents;

               2.

               That same Article 2, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 392/2004 of 24 February 2004, must be interpreted as precluding from now on such products from bearing, in Spain, the indication ‘biológico’ or its derivative ‘bio’ in the labelling, advertising material and commercial documents.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Case T-406/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galyca v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/55

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galyca v Commission
   (Case T-406/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/87
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Emesa-Trefilería, SA (Arteixo, Spain) and Industrias Galyca, SA (Vitoria, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested Decision insofar as it affects the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels. Furthermore, they seek the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on them.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   First, they claim that the Commission has violated the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in so far as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.
   Second, they submit that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a reduction of their fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), since the decision relies extensively on evidence originating from Emesa.
   Finally, they contend that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, although Emesa provided decisive evidence having a bearing on the duration and gravity of the infringement.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-360/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Land Hessen v G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag GmbH (Term of copyright protection — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Applicability to copyright which arose prior to the entry into force of the EEC Treaty)

text:
C 180/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            27.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 June 2002
                           of 6 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-33/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
in Case C-360/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Land Hessen v G. Ricordi & Co.
             Bühnen- und Musikverlag GmbH (1)                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste
                                                                            — Management of hazardous waste — Failure to provide
                                                                            information required under Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689
                                                                            — Establishments and undertakings which carry out disposal
(Term of copyright protection — Principle of non-discrimi-                                   and/or recovery of hazardous waste)
nation on grounds of nationality — Applicability to copy-
right which arose prior to the entry into force of the EEC
                               Treaty)                                                                    (2002/C 180/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                          (2002/C 180/09)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-33/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Stovlbaek and P. Panayotopoulos) v Hellenic
                                                                            Republic (Agents: P. Skandalou and N. Dafniou): Application
                                                                            for a declaration that, by failing to send to the Commission,
                                                                            within the prescribed period, the information concerning every
                                                                            establishment or undertaking which carries out disposal and/
In Case C-360/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  or recovery of hazardous waste required under Article 8(3) of
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                     Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), in the version
Land Hessen and G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag                    resulting from Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994
GmbH, on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6             (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28), and Commission Decision 96/302/EC
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of              of 17 April 1996 establishing a format in which information
Article 12 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                     is to be provided pursuant to Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La Pergola,              (OJ 1996 L 116, p. 26), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, the
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                 of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
                                                                            mermans, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
                                                                            trar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
The prohibition of discrimination in the first paragraph of Article 6
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of              1.     Declares that, by failing to send to the Commission, within the
Article 12 EC) is also applicable to the protection of copyright in                prescribed period, all the information required under Article 8(3)
cases where the author had died when the EEC Treaty entered into                   of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
force in the Member State of which he was a national. It precludes                 hazardous waste, in the version resulting from Council Directive
the term of protection granted by the legislation of a Member State                94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, the Hellenic Republic has failed
to the works of an author who is a national of another Member State                to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
being shorter than the term granted to the works of its own nationals.
                                                                            2.     Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: Case T-257/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Republic of Poland v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/41

         Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-257/13)
   2013/C 207/69
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 (notified under document C(2013) 981) on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20) in so far as it excludes from financing the amounts of EUR 28 763 238,60 and EUR 5 688 440,96 incurred by the paying agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               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 four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (1) and of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (2) by reason of the application of a financial correction which was based on a mistaken determination of the facts and on an incorrect legal interpretation

                           —

                           The Commission applied a financial correction which was based on a mistaken determination of the facts and on an incorrect legal interpretation, even though the expenditure was effected by the Polish authorities in accordance with European Union provisions. The Republic of Poland takes issue with the Commission’s legal interpretation and findings of fact with regard to the alleged deficiencies in the management system for the action sector ‘Early retirement’ concerning, firstly, the obligation to carry out a commercial activity during the period prior to cessation of operation for purposes of early retirement, secondly, the inadequacy of the evidence of professional aptitude accepted, in the form of a declaration, by the Polish authorities, and, third, the lack of sanctions in the event of non-compliance, by farmers resuming operation of a holding, with the obligation to carry on an agricultural activity for five years.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, and also infringement of the principle of proportionality, by reason of the application of a flat-rate correction which was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential loss to the European Union budget

                           —

                           None of the alleged deficiencies caused, or was capable of causing, financial losses for the European Union, and in any event the risk of such losses was entirely marginal.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of the inadequate reasoning of the contested decision

                           —

                           The Commission failed to produce any evidence or findings of fact or of law in support of its conclusions following the visit to three agricultural holdings.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of subsidiarity

                           —

                           The Commission flagrantly infringed the principle of subsidiarity, which is inscribed in the policy of support for rural development. The Commission interpreted the programming documents relating to support for rural development and, essentially, drew up requirements relating to the implementation of the programme, thereby interfering with the decision-making freedom of the Member States relating to the means by which to attain the objectives referred to in the programming documents.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-431/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Merck Genericos-Produtos Farmacêuticos L. da v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme, L. da (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) — Patents — Minimum term of protection — Legislation of a Member State providing for a lesser term — Article 234 EC — Jurisdiction of the Court — Direct effect)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Merck Genericos-Produtos Farmacêuticos L.da v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da

   (Case C-431/05) (1)

   (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) - Patents - Minimum term of protection - Legislation of a Member State providing for a lesser term - Article 234 EC - Jurisdiction of the Court - Direct effect)
   (2007/C 269/17)
   Language of the case: Portugese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos L.da

      Defendant: Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da

   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Interpretation of Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 214) — Jurisdiction in relation to interpretation — Direct effect
   Operative part of the judgment
   As Community legislation in the sphere of patents now stands, it is not contrary to Community law for Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), to be directly applied by a national court subject to the conditions provided for by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-399/03: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (State aid — Existing aid scheme — Tax scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium — Competence of the Council)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-399/03) (1)

   (State aid - Existing aid scheme - Tax scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium - Competence of the Council)
   (2006/C 212/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet, V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 on the granting of aid by the Belgian Government to certain coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2003 L 184, p. 17)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 on the granting of aid by the Belgian Government to certain coordination centres established in Belgium;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.