title: Case C-112/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen
   (Case C-112/15)
   (2015/C 146/36)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslageri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportsla A/S

                  Defendants

               :

                           1.

                           Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

                           2.

                           Fødevarestyrelsen

      Question referred

   Must Article 27(4)(a) of, read in conjunction with points 1 and 2 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, be interpreted as meaning that the Member States, in setting the fee charged to food establishments, are precluded from including expenditure for the salaries and training of the public-sector staff who are hired for the purpose of completing training which fulfils the requirements for ‘official auxiliary’: see Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, but who, prior to being accepted into the training or in the course of their training do not conduct meat inspections?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206.


title: Case C-652/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mirko Saba

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mirko Saba
   (Case C-652/13)
   2014/C 112/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari

      Party to the main proceedings

   Mirko Saba

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?


title: Case T-172/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (AFRICAN SIMBA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AFRICAN SIMBA — Earlier national figurative mark Simba — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (AFRICAN SIMBA)
   (Case T-172/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AFRICAN SIMBA - Earlier national figurative mark Simba - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 081/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl and C. Sachs, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2013 (Case R 157/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Novomatic AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case F-89/11: Action brought on 18 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/45

         Action brought on 18 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-89/11)
   2011/C 347/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s request, under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered in the context of an administrative and disciplinary procedure.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision of the Committee of the Regions No 352/2010 of 12 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted on 14 July 2010 under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage suffered in the context of an administrative and disciplinary procedure;

               —

               so far as is necessary, annul the express decision of the Committee of the Regions of 31 May 2011 rejecting the complaint which the applicant submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 10 February 2011;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the excessive length of the administrative and disciplinary procedures concerning the applicant;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of errors and negligence on the part of the Committee of the Regions in conducting various administrative and disciplinary procedures;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 41 888,68 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered as a result of the applicant’s involuntary early retirement;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay late payment interest on the above amounts at the European Central Bank rates, plus 2 percentage points;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to bear the costs.


title: Case T-201/13: Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/21

         Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission
   (Case T-201/13)
   2013/C 164/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rubinum SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant claims in essence as follows:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 (1)

               The applicant argues in this connection that the contested Regulation is based in particular on Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 and that the requirements of that provision are not satisfied in the present case. It refers in particular to the fact that the contested Regulation is based only on assumptions and that in fact neither the transfer of antibiotic resistance nor the production of toxins could actually be established.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003
               Here, the applicant claims that the Commission should have decided, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003, on the applicant’s application made under Article 10(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 1831/2003.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003
               The applicant claims in this regard that it had proved appropriately and sufficiently in various authorisation procedures that the feed additive produced by it did not in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 have an adverse effect on human or animal health or on the environment. Furthermore, evidence to the contrary was not forthcoming either from the Commission or the EFSA [European Food Safety Authority].

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2)

               On this point the applicant claims in essence that the contested Regulation is not based on a proper or full risk analysis.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002
               The applicant argues in this connection inter alia that the Commission also cannot justify the contested Regulation with reference to the precautionary principle in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002. It argues further that even taking the precautionary principle into account the contested Regulation does not comply with the requirements of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of European Union law
               The applicant in this context claims an infringement of the right to a hearing, the right to fair proceedings and the principle of proportionality.

               7.

               Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003
               It is claimed in this regard that the Commission failed to respect the two-month period laid down in Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003 within which a decision taken by the EFSA or a failure by it to exercise its powers may be reviewed and that it decided on the applicant’s application for review of an opinion of the EFSA only after adoption of the contested Regulation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 29).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).


title: Case C-47/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2012 — Kronos International Inc. v Finanzamt Leverkusen

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2012 — Kronos International Inc. v Finanzamt Leverkusen
   (Case C-47/12)
   2012/C 98/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kronos International Inc., Leverkusen

      Defendant: Finanzamt Leverkusen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the exclusion of the set-off of corporation tax as a consequence of the tax exemption of dividend distributions by capital companies in third countries to German capital companies, for which the German legislation only requires the capital company receiving the dividends to have a holding of not less than 10 % in the distributing company, subject only to the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU or also to the free movement of capital within the meaning of Articles 63 to 65 TFEU, if the actual holding of the capital company receiving the dividends is 100 %?

               2.

               Are the provisions concerning the freedom of establishment (now Article 49 TFEU) and, as the case may be, also concerning the free movement of capital (Article 67 EEC/EC until 1993, now Articles 63 to 65 TFEU) to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision which, where the dividends of foreign subsidiary companies are exempt from tax, excludes the set-off and payment of corporation tax on those dividend distributions even where the parent company makes a loss, if, for distributions by German subsidiary companies, there is provision for relief by setting off corporation tax?

               3.

               Are the provisions concerning the freedom of establishment (now Article 49 TFEU) and, as the case may be, also concerning the free movement of capital (Article 67 EEC/EC until 1993, now Articles 63 to 65 TFEU) to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision which excludes the set-off and payment of corporation tax on dividends of second and third-tier subsidiaries which are exempted from tax in the country of the subsidiary and which are (re)distributed to the German parent company and likewise exempted from tax in Germany, but in the case of purely domestic situations, as the case may be by means of the set-off of corporation tax on the second-tier subsidiary’s dividends in the hands of the subsidiary company and the set-off of corporation tax on the subsidiary’s dividends in the hands of the parent company, enables repayment in the event of a loss by the parent company?

               4.

               If the provisions on the free movement of capital are also applicable, a further question, depending on the reply to question 2, arises with regard to the Canadian dividends:
               Is the present Article 64(1) TFEU to be understood as meaning that it permits the application by the Federal Republic of Germany of German legislation and DTC provisions which have remained unchanged in substance since 31 December 1993 and, therefore, that it permits the continuing exclusion of the offsetting of Canadian corporation tax on dividends exempted from tax in Germany?


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case T-414/09: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Henkel v OHIM — JLO Holding (LIVE) (Community trade marks — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/46

         Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Henkel v OHIM — JLO Holding (LIVE)
   (Case T-414/09) (1)

   (Community trade marks - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 113/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Milbradt, subsequently by C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: JLO Holding Company LLC (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: A. Klett, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 609/2008-1) relating to an application for revocation involving Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and JLO Holding Company, LLC.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The parties shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-428/09: Action brought on 22 October 2009 — Berenschot Groep v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/30

         Action brought on 22 October 2009 — Berenschot Groep v Commission
   (Case T-428/09)
   2010/C 11/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Berenschot Groep BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: B. O’Connor, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul unreasoned decision of the Commission of 11 August 2009 not to rank the tender submitted by the applicant as one of the seven most economically advantageous tenders and in consequence no to retain the consortium led by the applicant in respect of the service tender procedure “Multiple Framework contract to recruit short-term services in the exclusive interest of third countries benefiting from European Commission External Aid”;

               —

               enquire into the conduct of the tender and the exercise of the vigilance in relation to tenderers suspected of fraud;

               —

               annul the decision of 21 October 2009;

               —

               make any additional order which the Court considers necessary;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision not to retain the bid it submitted as a part of consortium in response to a call for an open tender (EuropAid/127054/C/SER/multi) for service provision for “Multiple Framework contract to recruit short-term services in the exclusive interest of third countries benefiting from European Commission External Aid” (1). Furthermore, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 21 October 2009 granting partial access to the evaluation reports regarding the said tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law.
   First, it submits that the evaluation committee did not assess properly the experts included in the applicant’s tender. In its view, the evaluation committee made a manifest error of assessment by marking the experts of the consortium led by the applicant unreasonably. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the evaluation committee and the Commission did not provide any explanation on the grading system for individual curriculum vita nor did they explain why the applicant’s experts have scored so poorly. If the evaluation committee used no objective criteria when making its assessments, the Commission has not ensured that the principles of equal treatment of the tenderers, transparency, fair competition and good administration have been complied with. The evaluation report provided by the Commission on 21 October 2009 did not remedy the lack of information, as it was limited to the presentation of the final scores obtained by the applicant.
   Second, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2) in that it did not respond to the applicant’s request to access the documents in the time-limits set by this article. It also contends that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration, as the evaluation report has not been provided timely enough to enable the applicant to properly exercise its rights under Article 230 EC.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission has not complied with its obligations under Article 94 of the financial regulation (3) and under Decision 2008/969 (4) in that it did not take steps to protect the integrity of the Community’s budget by not excluding the tenderers suspected of fraud from the award of the contract in question.

      (1)  OJ 2008/S 90-121428

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      (4)  Commission Decision of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ L 2008 344, p. 125)


title: Case T-359/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Burden of proof — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission
   (Case T-359/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Burden of proof - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 355/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Heijmans Infrastructuur BV (Rosmalen, Netherlands) (represented initially by M. Smeets and A. Van den Oord, and subsequently by M. Smeets, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Heijmans Infrastructuur BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-468/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           concluded agreements which are incompatible with the
                                                                                EC Treaty, especially Article 52 thereof, and with the
                                                                                applicable secondary law, or by failing to take all legally
                        of 5 November 2002                                        possible steps to that end, failed to comply with its
                                                                                obligations under Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after
in Case C-468/98: Commission of the European Communi-                             amendment, Article 307 EC) as adapted by Article 6 of
                  ties v Kingdom of Sweden ( 1)                                   the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the
                                                                                Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                                Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral                       C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1),
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         Chamber, acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty                      V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
                        (now Article 10 EC))                                and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
                                                                            General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-
                                                                            Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 Novem-
                           (2002/C 323/03)                                  ber 2002, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                         1.    Declares that, by entering into or maintaining in force, despite
                                                                                the renegotiation of the air transport agreement of 16 December
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            1944 between the Kingdom of Sweden and the United States
                    in the European Court Reports)                                of America, international commitments with the United States
                                                                                of America
                                                                                —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
In Case C-468/98, Commission of the European Communities                                nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
(Agents: F. Benyon and C. Tufvesson) v Kingdom of Sweden                                munity routes,
(Agent: L. Nordling), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agents: M. A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel): Application for:
                                                                                —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
                                                                                use or used in Swedish territory, and
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded in 1995
      an ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of                         —     recognising the United States of America as having the
      America in the field of air transport, the Kingdom of                             right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases
      Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC                          where air carriers designated by the Kingdom of Sweden
      Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now Article 10 EC)                          are not owned by the latter or by Swedish nationals, the
      and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) thereof,                             Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
      and also under secondary law adopted pursuant to                                  under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and
      that Treaty, and in particular Council Regulation (EEC)                           Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers                           Article 43 EC) and under Council Regulation (EEC)
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/                          No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air
      92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                           services and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of
      to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8),                              24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992                               reservation systems, as amended by Council Regulation
      on fares and rates for air services (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15),                       (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993;
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989
      on a code of conduct for computerised reservation
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993 (OJ
      1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/                3.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs;
      93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the
      allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14,
      p. 1); and,                                                           4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
—     further and in the alternative, a declaration that, in so far
      as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded as having                    (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
      radically amended and thus replaced the agreements
      previously concluded, the Kingdom of Sweden has, by
      not rescinding those provisions of the said previously-


title: Case C-166/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis
   (Case C-166/13)
   2013/C 164/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Melun

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophie Mukarubega

      Defendants: Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the right to be heard in all proceedings, which is an integral part of the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and is furthermore enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as requiring that, where the administration intends to issue a return decision in respect of an illegally staying alien, irrespective of whether or not that return decision is taken after a refusal of a residence permit, and in particular in a situation where there is a risk of absconding, the administration must enable the interested party to present observations?

               2.

               Does the suspensive effect of the misuse of powers proceedings before the administrative court mean that it is possible to dispense with the prior right of an illegally staying alien to make his observations known with regard to the proposed removal measure to be taken against him?


title: Case T-556/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Royalton Overseas/OHIM — SC Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Royalton Overseas/OHIM — SC Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)
   (Case T-556/12)
   2013/C 63/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Năstase, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and design) as of October 4, 2012 and Communicated on October 22, 2012 in the case file No R 2535/2011-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘KAISERHOFF’, for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 9 242 066

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 110 809 of the word mark ‘KAISERHOFF’ for goods in classes 11, 21 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50, corroborated with Rule 20(7) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76(1) and 42(5) of Council Regulation No 2007/2009.


title: Case F-126/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 November 2014  — Durand v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/62

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 November 2014 — Durand v Commission
   (Case F-126/13) (1)

   (2015/C 007/81)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014, p. 47.


title: Case C-80/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Tax relief — Groups of companies and consortia — National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a company that is a member of a group which are connected by a ‘link company’ that is a member of both the group and the consortium — Residence condition for the ‘link company’  — Discrimination on the basis of where the corporate seat is located — Ultimate group parent company established in a third State and owning the companies which are seeking to transfer losses through companies established in third States)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-80/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Tax relief - Groups of companies and consortia - National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a company that is a member of a group which are connected by a ‘link company’ that is a member of both the group and the consortium - Residence condition for the ‘link company’ - Discrimination on the basis of where the corporate seat is located - Ultimate group parent company established in a third State and owning the companies which are seeking to transfer losses through companies established in third States))
   2014/C 159/02
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ltd, WPCS (UK) Finance Ltd, AS Watson Card Services (UK) Ltd, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ltd, Superdrug Stores plc

      Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax relief — National legislation permitting the transfer of losses sustained by a company that is established in the United Kingdom and owned by a consortium to a company established in the same State and belonging to a group of companies, subject to those two companies being connected through a link company which is a member of both the group and the consortium — Link company required to be established in the United Kingdom or to carry on a trade in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is possible for a resident company that is a member of a group to have transferred to it losses sustained by another resident company which belongs to a consortium where a ‘link company’ which is a member of both the group and the consortium is also resident in that Member State, irrespective of the residence of the companies which hold, themselves or by means of intermediate companies, the capital of the link company and of the other companies concerned by the transfer of losses, whereas that legislation rules out such a possibility where the link company is established in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-444/08 P: Appeal brought on 8 October 2008 by Região autónoma dos Açores against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2008 in Case T-37/04 Região Autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/15

         Appeal brought on 8 October 2008 by Região autónoma dos Açores against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2008 in Case T-37/04 Região Autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-444/08 P)
   (2008/C 327/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Região autónoma dos Açores (represented by: M. Renouf, Solicitor, C. Bryant, Solicitor, H. Mercer QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain, Seas at Risk VZW, WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, Stichting Greenpeace Council
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 in Case T-37/04;

               —

               Declare the application in Case T-37/04 admissible;

               —

               Annul Articles 3 and 11 and the Annex of Council Regulation 1954/2003 (1) in so far as they: a) provide for the fishing effort under the Regulation to be determined by reference only to the target species and the ICES/CECAF area but not also by reference to the type of fishing gear used, whether fixed or towed; and b) exclude deep-sea species (i.e. those demersal species covered by Regulation No 2347/2002 (2)) from the scope of Articles 3 and 11 of the Council Regulation 1954/2003.

               —

               Annul Article 15 of Council Regulation 1954/2003 in so far as the repeal of Regulations 685/95 (3) and 2027/95 (4): a) Removes (i) the power of the Community to determine fishing effort by reference not only to target species and ICES/CECAF area but also by reference to the type of fishing gear used, and (ii) the determination of the fishing effort, as effected by Regulation 2027/95; b) Removes (i) the power to determine a maximum annual fishing effort by area in respect of deep-sea species (i.e. those demersal species covered by Regulation No 2347/2002) and (ii) the determination of the maximum annual fishing effort, as effected by Regulation 2027/95; c) Removes the exclusion of access of Spanish vessels to the waters of the Azores for fishing of tuna or tuna-like species;

               —

               Annul Article 5(1) of Council Regulation 1954/2003 in so far as it does not maintain the exclusion of access of Spanish vessels to the waters of the Azores for fishing of tuna or tuna-like species;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance if the Court of Justice does not consider that the state of the proceedings is such as to enable it to give final judgment; and

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by the Autonomous Region of the Azores (Região Autónoma dos Açores) in respect of both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant relies on seven grounds to support its appeal against the above mentioned Court of First Instance judgment.
   First, that the Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the protection afforded to the appellant under Article 299(2) EC is not sufficient to establish that the appellant is individually concerned by the contested provisions.
   Second, that the Court of First Instance wrongly concluded that only Member States, and not regional authorities, have the right to defend the general interest of their territory.
   Third, that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to distinguish environmental from economic considerations.
   Fourth, that the Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the contested provisions would not entail harmful effects for the fish stocks and for the marine environment in the Azores and, concequently, for the survival of the fishing sector in the region.
   Fifth, that the Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the effect of the contested provisions on the appellant's legislative and executive powers did not make the appellant individually concerned by the provisions.
   Sixth, that the Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the appellant's application was not admissible by virtue of the lack of other effective judicial remedies available to the appellant.
   Seventh, that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to consider the factors relied upon by the appellant cumulatively as well as separately.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ L 289, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific acess requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks (OJ L 351, p. 6).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (OJ L 71, p. 5).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (OJ L 199, p. 1).


title: Case C-137/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal Dirección Provincial de Álava (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4(1) — Equal treatment of male and female workers — Part-time workers, primarily female — National legislation providing for a maximum amount of unemployment benefit — Legislation referring, for the calculation of that amount, to the relationship between the working hours of the part-time employees concerned and the working hours of full-time employees)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal Dirección Provincial de Álava
   (Case C-137/15) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Equal treatment of male and female workers - Part-time workers, primarily female - National legislation providing for a maximum amount of unemployment benefit - Legislation referring, for the calculation of that amount, to the relationship between the working hours of the part-time employees concerned and the working hours of full-time employees))
   (2016/C 038/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Pilar Plaza Bravo

      Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal Dirección Provincial de Álava

      Operative part of the order

   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, does not preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a provision of national law under which, in order for the amount of the benefit for total unemployment to be received by an employee following the loss of her only part-time employment to be calculated, a reduction coefficient for part-time work that corresponds to the percentage represented by the part-time working hours in relation to the hours completed by a comparable worker employed full-time is applied to the maximum amount of unemployment benefit generally laid down by law.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case C-245/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/8

         Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-245/12)
   2012/C 200/15
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, B. Simon and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), (1) or in any event by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a periodic penalty payment for failure to meet its obligation to notify transposition of Directive 2008/56/EC at a daily rate of 93 492 EUR calculated from the day on which judgment in the present case is delivered;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2008/56/EC had to be transposed expired on 15 July 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 164, p. 19.


title: Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling brought on 1 April 2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) in the case of P. Housieaux against the Délégués du Conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, supported by the Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont Immobilier (BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development (ILDWD)

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling brought on 1 April 2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) in the case of P. Housieaux against the Délégués du Conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, supported by the Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont Immobilier (BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development (ILDWD)
   (Case C-186/04)
   (2004/C 156/14)
   A reference for a preliminary ruling was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat in the case of P. Housieaux against the Délégués du Conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, supported by the Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont Immobilier (BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development (ILDWD).
   The administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat asks the Court to rule on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the two-month period in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1) a non-mandatory time-limit – that is to say, merely indicatory for the authority to which a request for information is addressed, or is it a mandatory time-limit with which that authority must comply ?

               2.

               If the two-month time-limit is mandatory and at the expiry of that period the authority to which a request for information was addressed has not taken a decision, what is the ‘decision’ referred to at the end of Article 4 of the Directive against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought ‘in accordance with the relevant national legal system’ ?

               3.

               Do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive prohibit a ‘relevant national legal system’ from interpreting a failure to respond on the part of the authority to which a request for information is referred – a failure to respond which continues throughout the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the Directive – as a decision implicitly refusing that request, a decision for which no reasons are thus given but which may be the subject matter of the judicial or administrative review provided for in Article 4 ?

               4.

               If the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the Directive is a non-mandatory time-limit, do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive preclude a ‘national legal system’ from providing that the person requesting information may give the authority notice to respond to his request for information within a certain period, failing which the persistent failure by the authority to respond will be deemed to be an implicit decision to refuse to communicate the information, which can then be the subject matter of an administrative judicial review ?

      (1)  OJ L 158 of 23.06.1990, p. 56.


title: Case T-42/12: Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Bateni v Council

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/23

         Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Bateni v Council
   (Case T-42/12)
   2012/C 98/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran; (2)

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs, including those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and in particular the duty to state reasons, by failing to provide an adequate justification for including the applicant in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation;

                           —

                           The Council failed, although called upon expressly by the applicant to do so, to indicate reasons or factors and to supply relevant proof which would justify his inclusion in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation;

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by not providing it with the opportunity, conferred by Article 23(3) and 23(4) of the contested decision and Article 36(3) and (4) of the contested regulation, to present observations on its inclusion in the sanctions list and thus to cause the Council to carry out a review.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there was no basis for including the applicant in the sanctions lists

                           —

                           The reasons given for including the applicant in the sanctions lists did not make it possible to identify the precise legal basis on which the Council acted;

                           —

                           An activity carried out by the applicant until only March 2008 cannot justify his inclusion in the sanctions lists in December 2011;

                           —

                           The applicant’s activity as manager of the Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping (HTTS) GmbH does not justify his inclusion in the lists of sanctions, in particular because the General Court of the European Union annulled Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (3) to the extent that it concerned HTTS GmbH;

                           —

                           The mere fact that the applicant was manager of an English company which has since been dissolved cannot constitute a reason under Article 20(1) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP (4) and/or Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 for including the applicant in the sanctions lists.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to property

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes an unjustified interference with his fundamental right to property, since the applicant — because of the inadequate reasons given by the Council — is unable to understand the reasons why he was included in the list of persons affected by the sanctions;

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is obviously inappropriate for the pursuit of the goals of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation No 961/2010 and also constitutes a disproportionate interference with his property rights.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11).

      (3)  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).

      (4)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).


title: Case T-326/12: Action brought on 25 July 2012 — Salim Georges Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/8

         Action brought on 25 July 2012 — Salim Georges Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council
   (Case T-326/12)
   2012/C 311/10
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicants: Salim Georges Al Toun and Al Toun Group (represented by: Stanislav Koev, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded in its entirety, and grant all the pleas raised in the application;

               —

               allow the present action to be examined under the accelerated procedure;

               —

               declare that the contested measures may be annulled in part, since the part of the measures to be annulled is removable for the measures as a whole;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012, in so far as Mr Salim Al Toun and the Al Toun Group have been added to the list set out in the annex to Decision 2011/782/CFSP;

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012, in so far as Mr Salim Al Toun and the Al Toun Group have been added to the list set out in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012;

               —

               order the Council to pay all of the applicants’ costs and legal fees related to their defence in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               By their first plea in law, the applicants allege a serious infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since the applicants were not warned about the contested measures, which they learned of via the media, or presented with any conclusive evidence or reference points to justify their inclusion on the list of persons to be fined. In that regard, the burden of proof is on the Council, which is required to justify the imposition of the restrictive measures.

               2.

               By their second plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the duty to state reasons. The Council merely made unfounded claims in the contested measures and infringed that duty, which is imposed on the institutions of the European Union by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the applicants submit that the Council relied on the imprecise notion of participation in the regime, of which there is no definition in the Council measures regarding the situation in Syria. In the light of the lack of clear and precise grounds on the part of the Council, the General Court is not able to review the lawfulness of the contested measures.

               3.

               By their third plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the right to effective legal protection, since the infringement of the duty to state reasons prevented them from preparing an effective defence, as provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 215 TFEU, and Article 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               By their fourth plea in law, the applicants allege an error of assessment on the part of the Council, since the applicant, Mr Salim Al Toun, was wrongly identified as a Venezuelan citizen, which is not the case, and the Al Toun Group has never participated, since in creation, in transactions related to oil or oil products, contrary to what is stated in the contested measures.

               5.

               By their fifth plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to pursue an economic activity, laid down in Article 1 of the additional protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since, by adopting Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012, the Council unduly deprived the applicants of the possibility of making peaceful use of their property, which puts their existence and their physical survival at risk.

               6.

               By their sixth plea in law, the applicants allege a flagrant infringement of the right to the protection of the reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the inclusion of the applicants’ names in the contested measures has unlawfully ruined their reputation in Syrian society, among their friends, in the religious community and among trading partners.


C 3/50                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
      Removal from the Register of Case T-247/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-225/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/86)                                                              (2002/C 3/89)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
By order of 20 September 2001, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 13 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-247/99, Flavia Angeletti and André Van Meuter v                    Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Case T-225/00: Andrea Gaul v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-167/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-55/01 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/87)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/90)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 14 September 2001, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 12 September 2001, the President of the Chamber
Case T-167/00: Jaume Costa v Commission of the European                   of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Communities.                                                              has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-55/01,
                                                                          Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-192/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/88)                                          Removal from the Register of Case T-112/01 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                   (2002/C 3/91)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Case T-192/00: Sabrina Tesoka v Commission of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-112/01: Ursula Klug v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.


title: Case T-126/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-126/09) (1)

   (Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)
   2013/C 313/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009 (OJ 2009, C 9 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/2

         Assignment of Judges to Chambers
   (2015/C 354/02)
   On 8 October 2015, the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Judge Forrester, to amend the decision of the General Court of 23 September 2013 (1), on the assignment of Judges to Chambers.
   For the period from 8 October 2015 to 31 August 2016, the assignment of Judges to Chambers is as follows:

         First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Kanninen, Vice-President, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Gervasoni and Mr Madise, Judges.

         First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Kanninen, Vice-President;
   Ms Pelikánová, Judge;
   Mr Buttigieg, Judge.

         Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Bieliūnas, Mr Gervasoni, Mr Madise and Mr Forrester, Judges.

         Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Gervasoni, Judge;
   Mr Madise, Judge.

         Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Bieliūnas, Mr Kreuschitz and Mr Forrester, Judges.

         Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Kreuschitz, Judge;
   Mr Forrester, Judge.

         Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Prek, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges.

         Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Prek, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Labucka, Judge;
   Mr Kreuschitz, Judge.

         Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Collins, Judges.

         Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Schwarcz, Judge;
   Ms Tomljenović, Judge.

         Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Collins and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

         Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Dehousse, Judge;
   Mr Collins, Judge.

         Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Kancheva, Mr Wetter and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

         Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge;
   Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judge.

         Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Popescu, Ms Kancheva and Mr Wetter, Judges.

         Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Kancheva, Judge;
   Mr Wetter, Judge.

         Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Pelikánová, Mr Popescu and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

         Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Czúcz, Judge;
   Mr Popescu, Judge.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 2.


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-457/04 (1)

   (2005/C 182/63)

      (Language of the case: Portuguese)

   By order of 7 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-457/04 Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 6 of 08.01.2005.


title: Case T-764/16: Action brought on 3 November 2016 — Paulini v ECB

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/42

         Action brought on 3 November 2016 — Paulini v ECB
   (Case T-764/16)
   (2017/C 014/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jörn Paulini (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 15 December 2015, as modified on 10 February 2016, which informs the applicant of his Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) reward for 2015;

               —

               grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice as described in paragraphs 99 to 103 of the application;

               —

               grant the applicant compensation for the moral prejudice he suffered, estimated at EUR 10 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the illegality of the 2015 ASBR guidelines insofar as they infringe the principle of non-discrimination, Article 51 of the Conditions of Employment and Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter. On a subsidiary basis, illegality of the contested decision insofar as it violates the 2015 ASBR guidelines and is tainted by a manifest error of assessment.
               The applicant considers that the 2015 ASBR guidelines are illegal insofar as they put at a disadvantage staff members with limited availability for their business area for reasons that are objectively out of their control, such as sick leave, part time work due to disability or time dispensation for activities in the Staff Committee (or a combination thereof), in comparison to their colleagues available full time for their business area. The contested decision, which was adopted on the basis of illegal ASBR guidelines, is, as a consequence, also illegal.
               On a subsidiary basis, should the 2015 ASBR guidelines be legal, the applicant nevertheless considers that the contested decision violates these guidelines insofar as his periods of absence were used as a discriminating element in his case and, moreover, should have been used as a positive behavioral attitude to influence the ASBR reward positively. All the factors to be assessed in accordance with the 2015 ASBR guidelines should manifestly have led to a higher ASBR reward.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, with regard to the application of the formula for time-dispensed staff representation activities, illegality of the contested decision insofar as it did not neutralise absences for sick leave and therefore violates the decision of 18 December 2008, the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter and of Article 51 of the Conditions of Employment. On a subsidiary basis, should the decision of 18 December 2008 not allow the possibility to neutralise sick leave, plea of illegality of the decision of 18 December 2008 in that respect.
               The applicant considers that the ECB should have neutralised his absence for sick leave, as reflected in his time dispensation for January and February 2015, when calculating his ASBR award for his activities as a member of the Staff Committee using the formula in the decision of 18 December 2008 on the ASBR formula for members of staff in relation to their Staff Committee activities.
               Should the decision of 18 December 2008 not allow such possibility, the applicant herewith challenges, on a subsidiary basis, the legality of this decision in that respect, as staff committee members whose time dispensation had to be redistributed for reasons of absence due to health are disadvantaged compared to their colleagues working full time, despite similar performance or output, and are disadvantaged because of their involvement in the Staff Committee.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging, as to the practice of rounding off, violation of the ECB decision of 18 December 2008 insofar as the decision of 18 December 2008 does not allow rounding off for Staff Committee members. On a subsidiary basis, if the 18 December 2008 decision allows rounding off for Staff Committee members, it would be manifestly unjustified and inadequate in that respect.
               In the second plea, the applicant challenged the legality of the decision of 18 December 2008 if that decision had to be interpreted as not allowing for the ECB to neutralise the applicant’s sick leave when applying the formula laid down to calculate ASBR awards. In that plea, he challenged the legality of that decision in that respect only. In addition, the ECB uses a practice which consists of rounding off the result of the formula, in order to translate it into steps, and then translates these rounded steps back into percentages in order to determine the salary increase to be received by the staff member.
               The applicant contests this practice which has no legal basis in the applicable rules and, in particular, in the decision of 18 December 2008. On a subsidiary basis, should the decision of 18 December 2008 be found to allow for the rounding of ASBR awards for Staff Committee members, this decision would be illegal in that respect as it would be manifestly unjustified and inadequate.


title: Case T-255/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat rate financial corrections — Direct payments — Conditionality — Aid for the processing of citrus fruit — Conditions for accreditation of a paying agency)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-255/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat rate financial corrections - Direct payments - Conditionality - Aid for the processing of citrus fruit - Conditions for accreditation of a paying agency))
   (2016/C 007/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Italy (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by B. Tidore and M. Salvatorelli, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 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 contains flat rate financial corrections concerning expenditure incurred by the Republic of Italy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Italy to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.