title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-299/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — National measures requiring as a condition for being able to register a ship in the Netherlands that the shareholders, directors and natural persons responsible for the day-to-day management of the Community company owning the ship have Community or EEA nationality — National measures requiring that the director of a shipping company be of Community or EEA nationality or have a Community or EEA residence)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-299/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - National measures requiring as a condition for being able to register a ship in the Netherlands that the shareholders, directors and natural persons responsible for the day-to-day management of the Community company owning the ship have Community or EEA nationality - National measures requiring that the director of a shipping company be of Community or EEA nationality or have a Community or EEA residence)
   (2004/C 300/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-299/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 August 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K.H.I. Simonsson and H.H. Speyart) and Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and S. Terstal) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in its legislation Article 311 of the Wetboek van Koophandel and Article 8:169 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek, under which certain conditions are fixed concerning:

                           —

                           the nationality of the shareholders of companies owning seagoing ships which they wish to register in the Netherlands;

                           —

                           the nationality of the directors of companies owning seagoing ships which those companies wish to register in the Netherlands;

                           —

                           the nationality of the natural persons responsible for the day-to-day management of the place of business from which the shipping business which is necessary for registration of a ship in the Netherlands registers is carried out in the Netherlands;

                           —

                           the nationality of the directors of shipping companies owning seagoing ships registered in the Netherlands; and

                           —

                           the residence of the directors of shipping companies owning seagoing ships registered in the Netherlands,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 48 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Action brought on 9 October 1995 by NV Waterleiding Maatschappij 'Noord-West Brabant' against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-188/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 333/ 19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the other four pleas advanced by the applicant ) order
                                                                          the Commission to examine all internal documents
— annul the decision of the Commission of 9 November                      connected with the adoption of the contested decision,
     1994 refusing the applicant full reimbursement of the                in order to determine whether that decision was adopted
     difference between the medical expenses actually                     in accordance with the principle of collegiality and the
     incurred and payments from the Joint Sickness                        Commission's rules of procedure;
     Insurance Scheme, in accordance with Article 24 of
     Annex X to the Staff Regulations,                               3 . order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the
                                                                          proceedings.
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 3 July 1995 in response            Pleas in law and main arguments:
    to the complaint;
                                                                     1 . The Commission has failed, with regard to the aid
— order the defendant to pay in full the difference between               measures approved in the contested decision, to initiate
    the expenses actually incurred and payments from the                  without delay the formal procedure under Article 93 ( 2 )
    Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, amounting in the                     of the EC Treaty, since the aid provisions of the Law on
    present case to Bfr 253 353 ;                                         the fiscal regime in respect of environmental protection
                                                                          give rise to a number of serious problems which cannot
— declare that the General Provisions implementing the                    be resolved by carrying out the prima facie examination
    first and second paragraphs of Annex X to the Staff                   provided for by Article 93 ( 3 ).
    Regulations are unlawful, and consequently withdraw
    them;                                                            2 . Inadequate and contradictory reasoning.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                         3 . Breach of general principles of Community law:
                                                                          deviation from its own published guidelines , in
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          particular the 'framework rules on aid for
                                                                          environmental protection' ( OJ 1994 C 72 , p. 3 ).
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
relied on in Case T-21 /95 ( ).                                     4 . The Commission has exceeded its powers : approval of
                                                                          an aid measure of unspecified duration on condition
(') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 15 .
                                                                          that, following a specific date, it is not to be further
                                                                          implemented without first having been renotified to the
                                                                          Commission : approval was thus granted subject to a
                                                                          ' resolutive condition '.
                                                                     5.   It is assumed that the Commission has failed to observe
                                                                          the principle of collegiality: hence the application for
Action brought on 9 October 1995 by NV Waterleiding                       measures of inquiry.
Maatschappij 'Noord-West Brabant' against the
         Commission of the European Communities                      6 . The Commission wrongly refused to review its earlier
                        ( Case T-188/95 )                                 judgment concerning previously notified aid measures
                          ( 95/C 333/36 )                                 which hat not yet been implemented, irrespective of the
                                                                          fact that the new framework rules had meanwhile
                                                                          entered into force .
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     (') That decision, addressed to the Netherlands Government,
An action against the Commission of the European                         declares that the aid measures contained in the Law on the fiscal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        regime in respect of environmental protection, whereby taxes
Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1995                   are to be introduced in relation to groundwater, waste products,
by NV Waterleiding Maatschappij 'Noord-West Brabant',                    fuels and uranium 235 , are compatible with the common
established pursuant to statute at Oudenbosch                            market .
( Netherlands ), represented by P. H. L. M. Kuypers, of the
Breda Bar, and H. M. Gilliams, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
J.-M. Bauler, 47 Grand-Rue .
                                                                     Action brought on 9 October 1995 by Service pour le
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA ) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
1 . declare the action admissible and well-founded and
                                                                                Case T-189/95 )
     consequently annul decision SG(95 ) D/8442 of the
     Commission of 3 July 1995 concerning aid case No                                           ( 95/C 333/37 )
     NN 13/95 ( Netherlands — Law on the fiscal regime in
     respect of environmental protection ) ( [ );                                      (Language of the case: French)
2 . ( only in the event that the Court considers that the            An action against the Commission of the European
     contested decision cannot be annulled on the grounds of         Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-23/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino, Sezione IV Penale by order of that Court of 13 January 2003 in the case brought against Michel Mulliez and Others

text:
C 70/8                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
       construed individually or in conjunction to mean that                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
       they make the itinerant selling on Belgian territory                   Ordinario di Torino, Sezione IV Penale by order of that
       by both Belgian nationals and other EU nationals of                    Court of 13 January 2003 in the case brought against
       subscriptions to periodicals subject to prior authorisation                               Michel Mulliez and Others
       by the Minister, or a Grade 1 official delegated by
       him, failing which a punishable offence is committed
       thereunder, where under those national provisions a
       German company selling or wishing to sell through the                                           (Case C-23/03)
       intermediary of vendors established in Belgium subscrip-
       tions to periodicals is required to obtain such prior
       provisional authorisation or, if it does not do so commits
       an offence under those provisions?                                                              (2003/C 70/14)
(b)    Does it make any difference to the answer to the first
       question that that law of 25 June 1993 does not make
       the sale of newspapers, periodicals and also subscriptions
       to newspapers subject to such prior authorisation?
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                              Torino, Sezione IV Penale (District Court, Turin — Criminal
                                                                              Section IV) of 13 January 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                              on 23 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                              brought against Michel Mulliez and Others on the following
                                                                              questions:
                                                                              1.   May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te
                                                                                as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to
Rotterdam by order of that Court of 21 January 2003 in
                                                                                establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the
the proceedings between Optiver BV and 38 Others
                                                                                part of commercial companies to publish their balance
        against Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten
                                                                                sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
                                                                                inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
                                                                                company information addressed to shareholders or the
                            (Case C-22/03)                                         public or of any other information concerning their
                                                                                economic, asset or financial position which they are
                                                                                required to provide and which concern the company
                           (2003/C 70/13)                                          itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
                                                                              2.   With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
European Communities by order of the Rechtbank te Rotter-                          Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
dam (District Court, Rotterdam) of 21 January 2003, received                       and, in particular, the combined provisions of
at the Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for a preliminary                        Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European
ruling in the proceedings between Optiver BV and 38 Others                         Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First
against Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten on the follow-                     Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth
ing question:                                                                      Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC ( 3) and
                                                                                Directive 90/605/EEC ( 4), be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                                legislation of a Member State under which no penalty
                                                                                may be imposed for breach of the duty to publish true
Does the Directive ( 1), and in particular the interpretation of                   and fair company documents (including the balance sheet
Articles 11 and 12, preclude the imposition of a levy as                           and profit and loss statement) where:
described above on securities institutions in respect of their
gross profit from securities-related activities?
                                                                                (a)    the falsehood is qualitative only,
( 1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
     indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249 of 03.10.1969,             (b) the falsehood in, or omission from, the company
     p. 25).                                                                              statement in question gives rise to a distortion of
                                                                                year-end profits or of the value of net company
                                                                                assets that, nevertheless, remains below a certain
                                                                                threshold expressed in percentage terms,
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/9
      (c)   information is given, albeit with the aim of mislead-         Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Italian Republic
            ing shareholders or the public in order to obtain                 against Commission of the European Communities
            unjust enrichment, which is the result of valuations
            or appraisals which, taken individually, diverge by
            no more than a certain percentage from a correct                                       (Case C-24/03)
            valuation or appraisal,
                                                                                (2003/C 70/15)
      (d) the falsehood, fraudulent omission or other infor-
            mation which does not faithfully depict the asset or
            financial position or profit and loss of the company
            does not ‘appreciably affect’ the portrayal of the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            asset or financial position of the company or group           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            of companies to which it belongs?                             Communities on 15 January 2003 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                          represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                          Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
3.    With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
      to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
      provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and Fourth
      Directive 78/660/EEC, must those directives and, in                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      particular, the combined provisions of Article 44(2)(g)
      of the Treaty Establishing the European Community,                  annul the decision of the Commission of 5 November 2002
      Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First Directive and            No 4127 (1), which excludes from Community financing
      Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth Directive, as               certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the
      amended by Directive 83/349/EEC and Directive 90/605/               Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      EEC, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a              Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) as follows:
      Member State under which, in the case of breach of the
      duty to publish true and fair company documents, which
                                                                          —     Point B.2.1 of the report — financial year 1999-2000 —
      is intended to protect ‘the interests of shareholders and
                                                                                fruit and vegetables — amount: EUR 68 050,00
      third parties’, creates a system of penalties which:
                                                                          —     Point B.2.1 of the report — financial year 2000-2001 —
      (a)   in the most serious cases (where material damage or                 fruit and vegetables — amount: EUR 7 853,00
            loss is caused) permits only shareholders or creditors
            to apply for the imposition of penalties, thus                —     Point B.4.1.6 of the report — financial year 1998-1999
            depriving third parties generally of effective protec-              — cereal storage — amount: EUR 1 272 616,34
            tion,
      (b) in less serious cases (where no material damage is
            caused and no complaint is submitted) provides for            Pleas in law and main arguments
            a minor or summary offence (‘contravvenzione’)
            which, in the context of the Italian procedure
            system, is, for the reasons set out in the grounds for
            the present order, ineffectual,                               1. F r u i t a n d v e g e t a b l e s
      (c)   permits individuals, by means of deferred with-               The Commission finds that the Italian authorities failed to
            drawal of their complaint, to undo entirely any               observe fully the provisions of Regulation No 2200/96 (2)
            protection of the right to transparency in company            (Article 25) and Regulation No 659/97 (3) (Article 9(2) and (3))
            matters?                                                      resulting in an underestimation of the quantities communi-
                                                                          cated when fixing the Community withdrawal compensation
                                                                          (CWC): this led to the Commission adopting a CWC which
                                                                          was too high.
( 1) OJ L 65 of 14.03.1968, p. 8.
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.08.1978, p. 11.
( 3) OJ L 193 of 18.07.1983, p. 1.                                        However, the Italian authorities take the view that, according
( 4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                       to the Community legislation in force, they provided sufficient
                                                                          information to the Commission which should have been able
                                                                          to revise its calculation of the CWC, having found minimal
                                                                          differences with respect to the final figures provided by the
                                                                          paying agency. The failure on the part of the Commission to
                                                                          amend the CWC cannot be attributed to the Italian authorities
                                                                          which pointed it out and sought to quantify it.


title: Case T-312/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission (Application for annulment — Fisheries — Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Commission Decision implementing an action plan aiming at filling gaps in the Italian fisheries control system — Measure not itself modifying the legal situation of the applicant — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission
   (Case T-312/14) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Fisheries - Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy - Commission Decision implementing an action plan aiming at filling gaps in the Italian fisheries control system - Measure not itself modifying the legal situation of the applicant - Not individually affected - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 279/43)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Federazione nazionale delle cooperative della pesca (Federcoopesca) (Rome, Italy); Associazione Lega Pesca (Rome); Associazione generale cooperative italiane settore agro ittico alimentare (AGCI AGR IT AL) (Rome) (represented by: L. Caroli, S. Ventura and V. Cannizzaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 8635 final of 6 December 2013 concerning an action plan implementing aiming at filling gaps in the Italian fisheries control system.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federazione nazionale delle cooperative della pesca (Federcoopesca), Associazione Lega Pesca and Associazione generale cooperative italiane settore agro ittico alimentare (AGCI AGR IT AL) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-472/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Ionas Stroumsas EPE v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Ionas Stroumsas EPE v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   (Case C-472/06)
   (2007/C 20/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Ionas Stroumsas EPE

      Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Questions referred:

               1.

               Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it ultimately the duty of a national competition authority to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?

               2.

               If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:

               2.1

               Do the percentage by which normal domestic consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered by an undertaking holding a dominant position compared with its total turnover and total profits constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?

               2.2

               Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:

                           (a)

                           is the answer affected by the fact that the ultimate consumer/patient derives limited financial advantage from the parallel trade and

                           (b)

                           is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?

               2.3

               What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 1995 in Case C-17/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the investigating magistrate of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Bergerac): criminal proceedings against Denis Gervais and Others (Artificial insemination of animals of the bovine species - Territorial monopoly - Restrictions on activities of veterinary surgeons)

text:
17 . 2 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 46/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
                        (Fifth Chamber)                              Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                      of 7 December 1995                             7 December 1995 , in which it rules :
in Case C-17/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
investigating magistrate of the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Bergerac): criminal proceedings against Denis Gervais and            1 . Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive
                             Others ( J )                                78/1026/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the
                                                                         mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
(Artificial insemination of animals of the bovine species —              evidence offormal qualifications in veterinary medicine,
 Territorial monopoly — Restrictions on activities of                    including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of
                      veterinary surgeons)                               the right of establishment and freedom to provide
                          ( 96/C 46/01 )                                 services, and Council Directive 78/1027/EEC of
                                                                         18 December 1978 concerning the coordination of
                 (Language of the case: French)                          provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                         administrative action in respect of the activities of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             veterinary surgeons do not apply to situations which are
          published in the European Court Reports)                       purely internal to a Member State such as those of
                                                                         nationals of a Member State wishing to carry out the
In Case C-17/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         activity of artificial insemination within that State
                                                                         without having previously trained for or carried out that
the EC Treaty from the investigating magistrate of the                   activity in another Member State.
Tribunal de Grande Instance, Bergerac ( France ), for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
before that court against Denis Gervais, Jean-Louis                  2 . Council Directive 77/504/EEC of 25 July 1977 on
Nougaillon, Christian Carrard and Bernard Horgue — on                    pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species and
the interpretation of Articles 37, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty            Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the
and Council Directives 77/504/EEC of 25 July 1977 on                     acceptance for breeding purposes ofpure-bred breeding
pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species ( OJ 1977               animals of the bovine species do not preclude national
L 206 , p. 8 ), 78/1026/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning               legislation which gives insemination centres a territorial
the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other               monopoly to practise artificial insemination while
evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine,                making practice as an inseminator conditional upon the
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the           issue of a licence as head ofan insemination centre or as
right of establishment and freedom to provide services ( OJ              an inseminator and the issue of such a licence
 1978 L 362 , p. 1 ), 78/1027/EEC of 18 December 1978                    conditional upon the production of a certificate from a
concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,              director of an authorized artificial-insemination
regulation or administrative action in respect of the                    centre .
activities of veterinary surgeons ( OJ 1978 L 362 , p. 7) and
87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for breeding
purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine                 3 . Article 37 of the EC Treaty does not apply to a
species ( OJ 1987 L 167, p. 54 ) — the Court ( Fifth                     monopoly in the provision of services, even if such a
Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),                   monopoly prohibits insemination by persons, even
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.                  those duly qualified and with the relevant capacity,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 46/2           1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   17 . 2 . 96
    other than the staff of the artificial-insemination centres       certain categories ofthose products, to the exclusion oflocal
    which enjoy the monopoly, provided that it does not               products in the same category.
    contravene the principle of the free movement of goods
    by discriminating against imported products to the
                                                                      (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
    advantage of products of domestic origin.
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 December 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  in Case C-41/95 : Council of the European Union v.
                     of 7 December 1995                                                  European Parliament (*)
in Case C-45/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                        (Budget)
Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia ): Cámara de                                            ( 96/C 46/03 )
Comercio, Industria y Navegación, Ceuta v. Municipality of
                              Ceuta ( 1 )
(Free movement of goods — Act of Accession of the                                    (Language of the case: French)
Kingdom of Spain — Provisions applicable to Ceuta and
Melilla — Charge having an effect equivalent to a customs             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
                                duty)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 96/C 46/02 )
                                                                      In Case C-41 /95 : Council of the European Union ( Agents :
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                      Jean-Paul Jacqué, Felix van Craeyenest and Yves Crétien ) v.
                                                                     European Parliament (Agents : Gregorio Garzón Clariana,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Christian Pennera and Peter Dyrberg) — application for the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    annulment of the act of the President of the European
                                                                      Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the final
                                                                      adoption of the general budget of the European Union for
In Case C-45/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        the financial year 1995 ( OJ 1994 L 369 , p. 1 ) — the Court,
the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia ( High         composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
Court of Justice ), Andalusia ( Spain ) for a preliminary ruling     Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A.
in the proceedings pending before that court between                  Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn
Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación, Ceuta and                 ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L.
municipality of Ceuta — on the interpretation of Article 25           Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the              General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal and the                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
adjustments to the Treaties of 12 June 1985 ( OJ 1985 L 302,          1995, in which it:
p. 23 ), and of Protocol No 2 thereto, in conjunction with the
provisions of the EEC, now the EC, and ECSC Treaties
concerning the free movement of goods — the Court ( Fifth             1 . annuls the act of the President of the European
Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur),                      Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the final
President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho               adoption of the general budget of the European Union
de Almeida, C. Gulmann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro,                  for the financial year 1 995;
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , the              2 . preserves the effects of the 1 995 budget, as published in
operative part of which is as follows :                                   the Official Journal of the European Communities, until
                                                                          the date of the final adoption of the budget;
The provisions of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of
Portugal and the adjustments to the Treaties of 12 June               3 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
1 985 and of Protocol No 2 thereto, in conjunction with
Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty or Article 4(a) of the             4 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
ECSC Treaty, or with Article 95 of the EC Treaty, preclude
the levying by a Member State of a charge which, although
having the appearance of internal taxation, is, either by             (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
reason of the wording of the provisions imposing it or by
reason of the manner in which the administrative authority
applies it, such as to be levied upon imported products or


title: Case T-101/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Dada v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark DADA — Earlier national word mark DADA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Dada v OHIM
   (Case T-101/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark DADA - Earlier national word mark DADA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Dada SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Locurto, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dada Srl (Udine, Italy) (represented by: M. Cartella and M. Fazzini, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2007 (Case R 1342/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dada Srl and Dada SpA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dada SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-422/07: Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-422/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/60)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-178/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), by order of that court of 28 January 2004 in the case of Prof. Dr. Franz Marhold v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), by order of that court of 28 January 2004 in the case of Prof. Dr. Franz Marhold v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-178/04)
   (2004/C 156/11)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) (Germany), received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Prof Dr Franz Marhold against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following question:

      In the case of an EU national who, as a professor at a German university, had civil servant status in a German Land and on that account was in receipt of a special allowance under the Gesetz über die Gewährung einer jährlichen Sonderzuwendung (Law on the grant of an annual special allowance, ‘SZuwG’) but before 31 March of the following year accepted an appointment with a university in another Member State and entered into a public law employment relationship with that other Member State, is Paragraph 3(5)(1) of the SZuwG, under which a person leaving before 31 March may retain the allowance only if the new employment relationship is an employment relationship under German law, inapplicable?


title: Case C-114/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) — Exemptions — Public postal services — Postage stamps — Directive 97/67/CE)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-114/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) - Exemptions - Public postal services - Postage stamps - Directive 97/67/CE))
   (2015/C 205/14)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: U. Persson and A. Falk, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to exempt from value added tax the supply by the public postal services of services other than passenger transport and telecommunications services, and the supply of goods incidental thereto, and the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within national territory, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-122/08: Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/30

         Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-122/08)
   (2008/C 142/54)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the procurement notice under reference EuropeAid/126316/C/SER/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Establishment of a Programme Management Unit to support the implementation of investments projects in the field of water/wastewater and solid waste’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 4 January 2008, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments are identical or similar to those advanced in Cases T-91/08, T-92/08 and T-93/08 Cyprus v Commission.


title: Case C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 September 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against Hellenic Republic

text:
3.4.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko                    Italian pro rata pension must be the unaugmented notional
Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-                 pension (non-supplemented theoretical amount) where the
ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against                       pensioner’s income exceeds the limits laid down by Italian law
                       Hellenic Republic                                for entitlement to the supplement to bring the pension up to
                                                                        the statutory minimum amount?
                         (Case C-25/04)
                                                                        (1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416.
                         (2004/C 85/23)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance) of 30 Septem-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 26 January 2004,
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE
                                                                        (Finland) by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the
against Hellenic Republic on the following questions:
                                                                        case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä
                                                                                (Public Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry
The questions in this case are identical to those in Case C-23/
04.                                                                                (Case C-40/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/25)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
Bolzano by order of that Court of 9 January 2004 in the                 (Finland) (Supreme Court) of 30 January 2004, received at the
case of Koschitzki Ursel against Istituto Nazionale della               Court Registry on 3 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
                  Previdenza Sociale (INPS)                             the case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä (Public
                                                                        Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry on the following questions:
                         (Case C-30/04)
                                                                        (1) What sort of limits does Community law, having regard
                                                                              in particular to Council Directive 98/37/EC (1) and
                         (2004/C 85/24)                                       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, lay down for the obligations
                                                                              which may be imposed in national law on the importer
                                                                              (or other distributor) of a machine bearing the CE
                                                                              marking in relation to the characteristics of the machine
                                                                              which concern safety
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bolzano
of 9 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 January               —     before the onward sale of the machine and
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koschitzki Ursel
against Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) on                 —     afterwards?
the following question:
                                                                        (2) Clarification is hoped for in particular as to:
In the light of Article 42 of the EC Treaty (as amended by the
Treaties of Amsterdam and of Nice), which requires the                        (a)   the extent to which and the conditions under which
adoption of appropriate measures in the field of social security                    the obligations of action or supervision in relation
for the implementation of the free movement of workers, can                         to the safety of the machine imposed on the
Article 46(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted                        importer (or other distributor) of a machine bearing
as meaning that the basis of calculation of the Italian pro rata                    the CE marking may be regarded as permitted from
pension must always be the notional pension, supplemented                           the point of view of Community law;
to bring it up to the statutory minimum pension, even if the
income limits laid down by Italian law for bringing the pension               (b) whether and in what way the assessment in relation
up to the statutory minimum have been exceeded (Article 6 of                        to Community law of the obligations imposed on
Law No 638/83, amended by Article 4 of Legislative Decree                           the importer (or other distributor) depends on what
No 503/92), or, on the other hand, must Article 46(2)(b) be                         sort of defects relating to the safety of the machine
interpreted as meaning that the basis of calculation of the                         are concerned;


title: Case F-83/08: Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Gheysens v Council

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/59

         Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Gheysens v Council
   (Case F-83/08)
   (2008/C 313/109)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant's recruitment in so far as it limits the duration of the contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1 and a declaration that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant's recruitment in so far as it limits the duration of his contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1;

               —

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


title: Case C-275/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Friedemann Schoen, Brigitta Schoen v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Friedemann Schoen, Brigitta Schoen v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-275/17)
   (2017/C 239/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Friedemann Schoen, Brigitta Schoen

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case F-123/12: Action brought on 23 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/9

         Action brought on 23 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-123/12)
   2012/C 389/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s request that her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks be reclassified as a temporary contract for an indefinite period.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 4 January 2012 of the AECE to reject the applicant’s request that her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks be reclassified as a temporary contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting her claim of 12 July 2012;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-135/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/26

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-135/14)
   2014/C 175/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union. (1)

               —

               maintain the effects of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 until the entry into force of a new regulation based on appropriate legal bases.

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission seeks annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 that the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
   The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that regulation although the Commission had proposed that the act be based on sector-specific legal bases, namely Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b) TFEU.
   It submits that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested regulation, Article 349 TFEU cannot legitimately be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU can be applied only when it involves derogation from the principle of application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the regulation at issue, without derogating from the Treaties, merely adapts secondary law to respond to the situation created by the change of the status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty, as well as by the historical origins of that article.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86.


title: Case T-408/07: Order of the General Court of 4 February 2010 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH) (Community trade mark — Revocation — Withdrawal of the request for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/39

         Order of the General Court of 4 February 2010 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)
   (Case T-408/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation - Withdrawal of the request for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 100/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Crunch Fitness International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially J. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently H. Johnson, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: ILG Ltd (Dun Laoghaire, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 1168/2005-4) relating to revocation proceedings between ILG Ltd and Crunch Fitness International Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 8, of 12.1.2008.


title: Case F-65/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 March 2012 — Schönberger v Parliament

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/12

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 March 2012 — Schönberger v Parliament
   (Case F-65/11) (1)

   2012/C 157/22
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011, p. 57.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 1999 in Joined Cases T-103/98, T-104/98, T-107/98, T-113/98 and T-118/98: Svend Bech Kristensen and Others v Council of the European Union (Officials — Action for annulment — Transfer of pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Request for refund of the difference)

text:
22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 20/19
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 November 1999
                      of 7 December 1999
                                                                          in Joined Cases T-103/98, T-104/98, T-107/98, T-113/98
                                                                          and T-118/98: Svend Bech Kristensen and Others v
in Case T-92/98: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v                                          Council of the European Union (1)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Action for annulment — Transfer of pension
                                                                          rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service —
(Action for annulment — Transparency — Access to docu-                                   Request for refund of the difference)
ments — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Rejection
of a request for access to Commission documents — Scope,
first, of the exception based on protection of the public                                            (2000/C 20/38)
interest (court proceedings) and, second, of the authorship
                 rule — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 20/37)                                   In Joined Cases T-103/98, T-104/98, T-107/98, T-113/98 and
                                                                          T-118/98: Svend Bech Kristensen, an official of the Council of
                                                                          the European Union, residing at Waterloo, Belgium, Bjarne
                                                                          Hoff-Nielsen, an official of the Council of the European Union,
                                                                          residing in Brussels, Peter Clausen, an official of the Council of
                  (Language of the case: German)                          the European Union, residing at La Hulpe, Belgium, and Ivar
                                                                          Langer Andersen, an official of the Council of the European
                                                                          Union, residing at Rungsted Kyst, Denmark, represented
In Case T-92/98: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, established               by Jean-Noël Louis, Véronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Georg M. Berrisch,                    Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels and Hamburg v Commission of the                    service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
European Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker) — application                 230 Rue de Cessange v Council of the European Union
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 April               (Agents: Martin Bauer and Denis Waelbroeck) — application
1998 refusing the applicant access to certain documents —                 for annulment of the Council decisions of 6 October 1997
the Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                 refusing the request for refund of that part of the applicants’
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung,               pension rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has               which was not taken into consideration in the calculation of
given a judgment on 7 December 1999, in which it:                         their years of pensionable service — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                          J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 April 1998 in so           judgment on 10 November 1999, the operative part of which
     far as it refuses access to documents emanating from the             is as follows:
     Commission;
                                                                          1. The decisions of the Council of 6 October 1997 refusing to
                                                                               refund that part of the applicants’ pension rights transferred to
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 the Community pension scheme which was not taken into
                                                                               consideration in the calculation of their years of pensionable
                                                                               service are annulled.
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          2. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998 and OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.


title: Case C-518/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 27 November 2008 — Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société des Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María Del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 27 November 2008 — Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société des Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María Del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet
   (Case C-518/08)
   (2009/C 32/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de grande instance de Paris
   Parties to the main proceedings

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

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

               1.

               Can France, subsequent to [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 (1), retain a resale right allowed only to the heirs to the exclusion of legatees or successors in title?

               2.

               Do the transitional provisions of Article 8(2) and (3) of [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 allow France to have a derogation?

      (1)  Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ L 272, p. 32).


title: Case T-428/10: Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v European Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/38

         Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v European Commission
   (Case T-428/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/70
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero (Santander, Spain) (represented by E. González Díaz and A. Tresandí Blanco, lawyers))

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel;

               —

               or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision challenged in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-426/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in that case.
   The applicant claims that the Commission made an error of fact and of law by applying Article 101 TFEU Article 101 TFEU so far as concerns the attribution of liability to TYCSA PSC by reason of the alleged infringement of that article in that the Commission attributes liability for the conduct described in the Decision to TYCSA PSC as an alleged member of an economic entity made up of various legal entities (GSW, TQ, MRT and TYCSA PSA itself) from 30 November 1992 to 19 September 2002.


title: Case T-44/03: Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
      or at the very least confidential, information by the                     were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      representative of the European Commission in Marseille;                   cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek
                                                                                frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of
—     order the defendant to pay all the recoverable costs,                     an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
      which amounts to EUR 10 000.
                                                                          —     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
                                                                                implementing the decisions annulment of which is
                                                                                sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     pay the applicants the entire amount which is outstanding
                                                                                as a result of the implementation of the decisions
The applicant claims that, during a meeting in Marseille on                     annulment of which is sought, together with interest at
23 January 2003, a representative of the defendant divulged                     the legal rate;
deceitful or at the very least confidential information. Such
disclosure resulted in damage for which it seeks compensation             —     order the Commission to pay the costs, expenses and fees
in the present application. In support of its arguments, the                    incurred.
applicant alleges non-contractual liability of the defendant in
the context of Article 288 EC and alleged breach of the
confidentiality obligation imposed on the representative of the
defendant by Article 287 EC.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission changing the procedure for
                                                                          calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      In support of the (main and alternative) arguments for
and Others against Commission of the European Com-                        annulment, the applicants essentially rely on six pleas in law
                            munities                                      alleging, first, infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                          lations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                          second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination; third,
                         (Case T-44/03)                                   infringement of the rights of the defence; fourth, breach of the
                                                                          principle that arbitrary procedures are prohibited and of the
                        (2003/C 101/73)                                   obligation to provide a statement of reasons; fifth, breach of
                                                                          the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                          of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’; and sixth, breach
                   (Language of the case: French)                         of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                          officials.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and 49
other officials, represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-45/03)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the                                           (2003/C 101/74)
      period within those years during which the applicants
      were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken
      into consideration for certain destinations;
      alternatively,                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority          European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio
      to reimburse, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the              S.p.A., represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, Massimo Merola,
      period within those years during which the applicants               Maurizio Pappalardo and Federica Martin, lawyers.


title: Case C-240/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 3 — Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges — National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-240/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 3 - Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges - National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending))
   (2016/C 350/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that subjects a national regulatory authority, within the meaning of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, to provisions of national law applicable to public finances and, in particular, to provisions for limiting and streamlining the spending of public administrative authorities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-733/16: Action brought on 18 October 2016 — Banque Postale v ECB

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/32

      Action brought on 18 October 2016 — Banque Postale v ECB
      (Case T-733/16)
      (2016/C 454/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: La Banque Postale (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume and L. Coudray, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016 on the application submitted by La Banque Postale seeking authorisation to exclude exposures to the public sector from the calculation of the leverage ratio in accordance with Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;

                  —

                  order the European Central Bank to bear all 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 that the European Central Bank erred in law by delivering prematurely its decision of 24 August 2016 on the application submitted by La Banque Postale seeking authorisation to exclude exposures to the public sector from the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB lacks discretion in applying Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 575/2013’).

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringements of law by the ECB in adopting the contested decision, relating in particular to:

                              —

                              the lack of a leverage effect in regard to La Banque Postale’s centralised savings;

                              —

                              the alleged risks of non-payment by the Caisse des dépôts et consignations and by the French State;

                              —

                              the alleged operational risks linked to the gathering of La Banque Postale’s centralised savings.


title: Case C-478/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2008 — Buzzi Unichem SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2008 — Buzzi Unichem SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   (Case C-478/08)
   (2009/C 19/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Buzzi Unichem SpA and Others

      Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               May the ‘polluter pays’ principle laid down in Article 174(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that, even if only by way of exception, the obligations regarding emergency safety measures, decontamination and environmental reinstatement of a contaminated site (and/or the costs relating thereto) may be imposed on a person having no connection with the release into the environment of the substances which led to the ecological impairment of that site, or, in the event of a negative answer, does that principle preclude national legislation and/or an administrative approach which imposes obligations regarding emergency safety measures, decontamination and environmental reinstatement of a contaminated site (and/or the costs relating thereto) upon a person who claims to have no connection with the release into the environment of the substances which led to the ecological impairment of that site, without any prior ascertainment of any individual responsibility by virtue of a causal link, or merely because that person happens to operate in or has property rights in a contaminated area, in breach or disregard of the principle of proportionality?

               2.

               Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle preclude national legislation, and in particular Article 2050 of the [Italian] Civil Code, which allows the Public Authority, where a number of industrial operators operate within the contaminated site, to impose on them the burdens of the decontamination of that site, without prior ascertainment on an individual basis of their respective responsibility for the pollution, or in any event merely because they are deemed accountable by virtue of their ownership of the means of production and are therefore subject to strict liability for the damage they cause to the environment or may they in any event be required to reinstate the area around the widespread pollution identified there even where no material causation has been established for the pollution and there is no proportional basis for it?

               3.

               Does the Community directive on compensation for environmental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 and in particular Article 7 thereof and Annex II thereto, to which that article refers) preclude national legislation which allows the Public Administration to require, ‘as reasonable options for remedying environmental damage’, that action be taken concerning environmental matrices (comprising in this case the ‘physical confines’ of the groundwater along the entire sea front) which are different from and go further than those chosen on completion of an appropriate investigation carried out on a consultative basis, which have already been approved and put into effect and are being implemented, without in any event having assessed the site-specific conditions, the costs of implementation in relation to the reasonably foreseeable benefits, the possible or probable collateral damage and adverse effects on public health and safety, and the necessary time scales for implementation?

               4.

               Given the specificity of the situation prevailing in the Priolo Site of National Interest, does the Community directive on compensation for environmental damage (Directive 2004/35/CE of 21 April 2004 and in particular Article 7 and Annex II thereto, to which that article refers) preclude national legislation which allows the Public Administration to impose such requirements as conditions for an authorisation for the lawful use of the areas not directly affected by the decontamination in so far as they have already been decontaminated or were not in any event polluted, included within the limits of the Priolo Site of National Interest?

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.


title: Case T-296/08: Action brought on 28 July 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/19

         Action brought on 28 July 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-296/08)
   (2008/C 247/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Claus, lawyer, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 23 May 2008 definitively granting a payment under the ‘Integration indicators and generation change’ programme on the basis of the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077, insofar as applicant's application for a final payment of EUR 59 592,77, exceeding the authorised amount, was rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant and the Commission signed a contract in May 2005 concerning the promotion of a project in the context of the INTI programme. By letter dated 23 May 2008, the defendant granted the applicant a lower final payment than that for which the latter had applied. The present action is directed against the rejection of its application for payment of the costs exceeding the authorised sum.
   The applicant asserts in support of its action that the Commission's view that a change of project participants after the conclusion of the financing arrangement is only possible if an appropriate alteration agreement is concluded is unfounded. This is due to the fact that a provision to that effect is not included in the financing arrangement. Further, the Commission refused to recognise costs on various grounds, which are incompatible with the financing arrangement and with previous institutional practice.


title: Case T-327/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Mallis and Malli v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/32

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Mallis and Malli v Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case T-327/13)
   2013/C 252/54
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Constantinos Mallis (Larnaca, Cyprus) and Elli Malli (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Εfstathiou, K. Εfstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare the action to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013, which took its final form through the decision of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus as the representative and/or agent of the European System of Central Banks dated 29 Μarch 2013, K.D.P [Regulatory Administrative Act] 104/2013, whereby the ‘sale of certain operations’ of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd was decided and which in essence constitutes a joint decision of not only the European Central Bank but also of the European Commission;

               —

               In addition, declare that the abovementioned decision of the Eurogroup in essence constitutes a joint decision of the European Central Bank and/or of the European Commission irrespective of the shape or form in which it was dressed;

               —

               order the European Central Bank and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicants put forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               By the first plea for annulment the applicants maintain that the contested decision is null and void, since the decision exceeds the powers conferred by the Treaty on European Union on not only the European Central Bank but also the European Commission, and is manifestly an act which was ultra vires of those two institutions.

               2.

               By the second plea for annulment, the applicants maintain that the contested decision is in breach of the right to respect for property, which is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as confirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               By the third plea for annulment, the applicants maintain that the contested decision is manifestly unfounded and lacking any legal basis and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicants maintain that the contested decision is also contrary to the generally recognised legal principles which have been disseminated in European Union law and in particular to the principle that no-one may rely on his own failures to obtain an advantage and/or to justify wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.


title: Case T-104/14 P-INTP: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji (Proceedings — Interpretation of the judgment)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji
   (Case T-104/14 P-INTP) (1)

   ((Proceedings - Interpretation of the judgment))
   (2017/C 078/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Re:

   Request for interpretation of the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14), must be interpreted as meaning that it covers both the costs relating to the appeal proceedings and those relating to the proceedings at first instance;

               2)

               Mr Marco Veril and Ms Anduela Gjergji, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other, shall each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interpretation;

               3)

               The original of this judgment shall be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.