title: Case T-263/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/54

         Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-263/05)
   (2005/C 217/111)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 845/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a lilac four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 713

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-540/10: Action brought on 24 November 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/48

         Action brought on 24 November 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-540/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/87
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 6154 of 13 December reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following projects

                           —

                           ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-A’ (CCI No 2001.EC.16.C.P.T. 005)

                           —

                           ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d’Anoia’ (CCI No 2001.EC.16.C.P.T. 008)

                           —

                           ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia-Gelida)’ (CCI NO 2001.ES.16.C.P.T.009) and

                           —

                           ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid- Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-C’ (CCI NO 2001.ES.16.C.P.T.0010)

               —

               alternatively, partially annul the decision in so far as it refers to the corrections applied to the amendments arising from exceeding the noise thresholds (Subsection IX-A), the change of PGOU of the Ayuntamiento de Santa Oliva (Subsection IX-A) and the differences in the geotechnical conditions (Subsections X-B. IX-A, XI-B and IX-C), reducing the amount of the correction by EUR 2 348 201,96;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the aid from the Cohesion Fund initially granted to the phase of the projects mentioned above, because of alleged irregularities in the application of the law on public procurement.
   The Kingdom of Spain takes the view the decision should be annulled on three different grounds:

               (a)

               Infringement of Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 (1) as the Commission failed to take a decision within the period of three months from the date of the hearing.

               (b)

               Infringement, by reason of incorrect application, of Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38 (2) since contracting for additional services is a matter conceptually distinct from the amendment of a contract which is being executed laid down by Spanish public procurement law, so that that amendment does not fall within the scope of Directive 93/38.

               (c)

               In the alternative, infringement of Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38 on the ground that all the requirements were fulfilled in order for the Spanish authorities to adjudicate by way of the negotiation procedure without advertising the additional works carried out in the four phases of the project affected by the correction.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 82, p. 40).


title: Case T-583/11: Action brought on 14 November 2011 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium L)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/59

      Action brought on 14 November 2011 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium L)
      (Case T-583/11)
      (2012/C 25/114)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 246/2011-1;

                  —

                  Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Premium L’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11

         Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character.


title: Case F-140/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/55

         Action brought on 22 December 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-140/14)
   (2015/C 065/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to re-establish the career of the applicant by re-grading her, with effect from 1 March 2005, in a higher function group, and claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AECE) dated 17 September 2014, sent by a note of 18 September 2014 and received by the applicant on 19 September 2014;

               —

               Order payment of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant assessed ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 30  000;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-109/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Time-limit for adopting a decision)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-109/12) (1)

      (Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Time-limit for adopting a decision)
      (2015/C 073/29)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés and X. M. García García, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040);

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case F-46/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Höpcke v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AST/111/10 — Non-inclusion in the reserve list — Instruction to draft a text of a minimum length — Failure to comply)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/32

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Höpcke v Commission
      (Case F-46/12) (1)

      (Civil Service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AST/111/10 - Non-inclusion in the reserve list - Instruction to draft a text of a minimum length - Failure to comply)
      (2014/C 71/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application to annul the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the name of the applicant in the list of successful candidates for that competition.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Höpcke to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 25.


title: Case F-16/06: Action brought on  15 February 2006  — Augenault and Others v Council

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/38

         Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Augenault and Others v Council
   (Case F-16/06)
   (2006/C 96/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Françoise Augenault and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it;

               —

               consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others v Commission (1).

      (1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.


title: Case C-467/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gießen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Baris Akyüz (Directives 91/439/EEC and 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal of a Member State to recognise, in respect of a person who does not satisfy the physical and mental requirements for driving under the laws of that Member State, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gießen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Baris Akyüz
   (Case C-467/10) (1)

   (Directives 91/439/EEC and 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal of a Member State to recognise, in respect of a person who does not satisfy the physical and mental requirements for driving under the laws of that Member State, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)
   2012/C 118/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Gießen

      Party to the main proceedings

   Baris Akyüz

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Gießen — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) and of Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal of a Member State to recognise, in respect of a person who does not meet the physical and mental requirements for driving under the laws of that Member State, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The combined provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences and those of Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a host Member State which allows that State to refuse to recognise, within its territory, a driving licence issued by another Member State in the case where the holder of that licence has not been made subject, by that host Member State, to any measure within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 or the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 but the issue of a first driving licence in that State was refused to that person on the ground that he did not satisfy, under that State’s legislation, the physical and mental requirements for the safe driving of a motor vehicle.

               2.

               Those combined provisions must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a host Member State which allows that State to refuse to recognise, within its territory, a driving licence issued in another Member State in the case where it is established, on the basis of indisputable information emanating from the issuing Member State, that the holder of the driving licence did not satisfy the normal residence condition laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439 and in Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2006/126 at the time when that licence was issued. In that respect, the fact that that information is conveyed, not directly but only indirectly, by the issuing Member State to the competent authorities of the host Member State in the form of a notification by third parties, is not, in itself, such as to preclude that information from being capable of being regarded as emanating from the issuing Member State, in so far as it comes from an authority of that Member State.
               It is a matter for the referring court to determine whether information obtained in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings can be classified as information emanating from the issuing Member State and, if necessary, to evaluate that information and to assess, taking into account all the facts of the dispute before it, whether it constitutes indisputable information demonstrating that the holder of the licence was not normally resident in the territory of that latter State at the time when his driving licence was issued.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-466/11: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Italy) — Gennaro Currà and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Action brought by the victims of massacres against a Member State as the party liable for acts committed by its armed forces in wartime — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/5

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Italy) — Gennaro Currà and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-466/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Action brought by the victims of massacres against a Member State as the party liable for acts committed by its armed forces in wartime - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2012/C 303/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gennaro Currà, Nadia Orlandi heir of Aldo Orlandi, Renzo Ciro Malago heir of Federico Malago, Ruberto Ezecchia, Camillo Turchetti, Franco Forni, Ilva Morselli heir of Ermenegildo Morselli, Elisa Ghisolfi and Anna Ghisolfi joint heirs of Luca Ghisolfi, Primo Zelioli, Francesco Perondi, Anna Furgeri heir of Agide Furgeri, Elena Penzani and Gian Luigi Penzani joint heirs of Carlo Penzani, Renato Mortari, Ada Zaccaria heir of Sigifredo Zaccaria, Erino Alberti, Gabriella Boccaletti heir of Mario Boccaletti, Rita Boccasanta heir of Ernesto Boccasanta, Alberto Borelli, Pierantonio Foresti heir of Franco Foresti, Irmo Sancassiani, Ennio Mischi heir of Aldo Mischi, Graziano Broglia heir of Rosolino Broglia, Alba Spinella and Maria Raffaella Spinella joint heirs of Vincenzo Rocco Spinella, Giuseppe Ferri, Alessandra Fontanabona heir of Giulio Fontanabona, Luciana, Mariuccia and Giulietta Pedratti joint heirs of Carlo Pedratti, Raffaele Colucci

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      In the presence of: Repubblica italiana

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4(3), 6 and 21 TEU and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Crimes against humanity — Action brought by victims of massacres against a Member State as the party liable for acts committed by its armed forces in wartime — Victims’ right to compensation — Whether time-barring of this right is permissible — Whether it is permissible that the Member State in question should claim immunity from jurisdiction

      Operative part of the order

   It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-188/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Peter Hehenberger v Republic of Austria

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Peter Hehenberger v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-188/11)
   2011/C 211/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Question referred

   Does Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 (2) preclude the laying down of rules by the provider of support requiring repayment by the recipient, in the event that an on the-spot check (area measurement) is prevented, of all support already given in the context of an agri-environmental measure during the commitment period, even if it has been awarded and disbursed for a number of years?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

      (2)  Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) (OJ 2004 L 231, p. 24).


title: Case C-73/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-73/14)
   2014/C 93/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Finnegan, R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit a ‘Written statement by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (1); and

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By means of this application, the Council respectfully requests the Court to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit the ‘Written statement on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (the ‘Contested Decision’).

               2.

               The Council considers that the Contested Decision, which was submitted by the Commission without the Council's approval and against the Council's will, is illegal because it infringes fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties.

               3.

               The Council raises two pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment of the Contested Decision.

               4.

               First, by adopting the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of distribution of powers enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance (first plea in law). Under the first limb of that plea, the Council submits that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopts acts having legal effects and that, consequently, the position to be expressed on behalf of the Union before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should have been established by the Council in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU. Under the second limb of the first plea, the Council considers that, in any event, the Commission infringed Article 16(1) TEU by usurping for itself the policy-making functions which, under that Treaty provision, belong to the Council alone.

               5.

               Secondly, by undertaking the course of action leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 13(2)TEU (second plea in law).

      (1)  The Council does not request, at this juncture, the annulment of the Commission Statement to the Tribunal.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying out certain optical examinations — National legislation restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively for ophthalmologists)

text:
16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 173/3
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                        As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the
3.    Orders the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the             competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the
      Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European               national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that,
      Communities to bear their own costs.                                 within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the
                                                                           objective examination of a client’s eyesight, that is to say, an
                                                                           examination which does not use a method under which the client
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
                                                                           alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is
                                                                           reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a
                                                                           category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as
                                                                           ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are
                                                                           not qualified medical doctors. It is for the national court to assess, in
                                                                           the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establish-
                                                                           ment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the
                                                                           competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.
                        of 1 February 2001                                 (1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.
in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis
Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun
and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express
Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Pro-
fessionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmo-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         logie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                                            of 1 February 2001
after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) —
National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying                   in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
out certain optical examinations — National legislation                    the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH
restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out                                       v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively
                       for ophthalmologists)                               (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
                                                                           Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant
                          (2001/C 173/04)                                  time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of
                                                                           goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of
                                                                                origin — Effect)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-108/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brus-                                 in the European Court Reports)
sels) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
pending before that court against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek                   In Case C-66/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision                        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly              (Finance Court), Bremen, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins               the proceedings pending before that court between D. Wandel
Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil                 GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation of
plaintiff — on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty            Article 75, Article 201(1)(a) and (2), Article 203(1) and
(now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC                Article 204(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49                 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                 (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth           of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges;                   J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,            Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it has                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ruled:                                                                     1 February 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Action brought on 2 October 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-358/98)

text:
21.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/11
3. For the purposes of Article 8 and/or 9 of Directive              Action brought on 2 October 1998 by the Commission of
    64/221/EEC, where national law:                                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-358/98)
                                                                                (98/C 358/20)
    Ð permits the competent authorities, as an alternative
         to detention, to grant temporary admission' to a
         national of another Member State who does not
         hold a current residence permit onto the territory         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
         of the host Member State, without granting that            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
         person entry' under national law into the Member          2 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
         State concerned; and                                       Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Maria
                                                                    Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Ð permits the competent authorities to keep the
         person concerned on temporary admission until
         they have completed their enquiries as to whether          The applicant claims that the Court should:
         or not the facts justify measures to exclude that
         person from the Member State on grounds of
         public policy,                                             Ð declare that, by making the provision of cleansing,
                                                                         disinfection,   disinfestation,  rodent-control     and
                                                                         sanitation services by operators established in other
                                                                         Member States subject to registration under Article 1
                                                                         of Law No 82/1994 of 25 January 1994, in
    is a subsequent decision to refuse entry' to that person            accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that Law, the
    and to exclude her from the territory of the Member                  Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    State on grounds of public policy a decision                         under Article 59 of the EC Treaty;
    concerning entry into the territory of a Member State,
    or a decision concerning expulsion from the territory
    of a Member State?
                                                                    Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings.
4. Is the answer to question 3 different if national law            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    permits the competent national authorities to lift
    employment restrictions initially imposed as a
    condition of such temporary admission, and those
                                                                    According to the Commission, the obligation on
    authorities do so after the decision is taken to refuse
                                                                    undertakings to register and the substantial penalties
    admission to the national territory, pending the
                                                                    provided for failure to comply with that obligation
    determination of judicial review proceedings to set
                                                                    amount to a clear breach of Article 59 of the Treaty,
    aside that refusal?
                                                                    which provides for the abolition of all restrictions on the
                                                                    freedom to provide services within the Community. By
                                                                    providing penal sanctions for the exercise of cleansing
                                                                    activities by non-registered undertakings, by providing
                                                                    that contracts concluded with such undertakings are void,
5. Is the answer to question 3 capable of being affected            and by providing for administrative penalties to be
    by the length of time taken a) to refuse entry' and/or         imposed on those receiving cleansing services provided by
    b) to implement such decision by actually removing              non-registered undertakings, Article 6 of Law No 82/1994
    the person concerned from the territory of the                  has the result that registration of undertakings constitutes
    Member State, and if so in what way?                            an essential precondition to carrying out cleansing,
                                                                    disinfection and similar activities within the territory of
                                                                    the Italian State.
6. Is the answer to question 5 in turn capable of being
    affected by whether the delay in implementing a                 The Commission submits that, in so far as that
    decision to refuse entry' is due to a challenge to its         registration requirement also applies to operators
    legality, and if so in what way?                                established in other Member States and not established in
                                                                    Italy, it prevents and in any event obstructs the freedom to
                                                                    provide services as defined by Article 60 of the Treaty.


title: Case C-543/16: Action brought on 27 October 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/31

         Action brought on 27 October 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-543/16)
   (2017/C 006/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt additional measures or reinforced actions as soon as it became clear that the measures of the action programme were insufficient to achieve the objectives of the directive, and by not revising its action programme in order to bring it into conformity with the mandatory requirements of Annexes II and III, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(5) and (7) of, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; (1)

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By failing to adopt additional measures or reinforced actions, even though it would have become clear at the latest by the time of Germany’s submission, on 4 July 2012, of the fifth report pursuant to Article 10 of the directive for the period from 2008 to 2011 that the measures of the German action programme would be insufficient to achieve the objectives of the directive, the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Article 5(5) of Directive 91/676/EEC.
   Moreover, by failing to update the German action programme, even though that was required in view of the situation demonstrated in the abovementioned report of 4 July 2012, the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Article 5(7) of the directive. Thus the Federal Republic of Germany was in any event required to take measures that would fully and properly correspond to the substantive requirements of Article 5(3) and (4) of, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to, the directive.
   That is not the case under the applicable German rules, given that they:

               —

               include, in relation to the principle of balanced use of fertilisers, a calculation of fertiliser requirements which is not be consistent with the actual nutritional needs of individual crops, or with the requirements in the different climactic soil regions and the monitoring of the effect of the use of fertilisers on water protection, and allow an operational excess of nutrients of up to 60 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year (see Annex III, point 1, number 3, to the directive);

               —

               provide for an exception for ‘solid manure without poultry manure’ during restricted periods, which does not include a distinction on the basis of climactic soil regions, types of fertiliser, practices relating to the use of fertilisers and other environmental factors, and prescribe, in relation to restricted periods, only periods of two and a half to three months (see Annex III, point 1, number 1, and Annex II, Part A, point 1, to the directive);

               —

               prescribe, in relation to the prescribed capacity of vessels for the storage of manure, storage capacities which are based on restricted periods which are too short and, with the exception of the requirements for Berlin, Saxony and Thuringia, relate only to the storage of liquid manure (see Annex II, Part A, point 5, to the directive);

               —

               allow the land application of a maximum amount of manure corresponding to 230 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year on grassland and pastures under certain conditions (see Annex III, point 2, first subparagraph, to the directive);

               —

               provide, in relation to the land application of fertiliser to steeply sloping land, exceptions for solid manure, with the exception of poultry manure, and provide for limitations on the land application of fertilisers high in nitrogen only in relation to a slope with more than a 10 % gradient and prohibitions in that case only within a distance of three meters to the upper edge of the bank of the waters, and therefore depart in several respects from the relevant scientific study (see Annex II, Part A, point 2, and Annex III, point 1, number 3(a), to the directive);

               —

               prohibit the land application of fertilisers only in situations where there is snow cover of more than five centimetres and in relation to ‘land which is constantly frozen and does not superficially thaw over the course of the day’ (see Annex II, Part A, point 3, and Annex III, point 1, numbers 3(a) and (b), to the directive).

         The regular notifications of the German Government regarding the scheduled amendment of the Düngeverordnung (German decree on fertilisers) do not, in the Commission’s view, disprove the infringements of Article 5(5) and (7) of the directive that are alleged, as the rules in question did not enter into force before the expiry, on 11 September 2014, of the period set in the reasoned opinion and have not entered into force since that time.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.


title: Case T-173/10: Action brought on 19 April 2010 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green cross)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/41

         Action brought on 19 April 2010 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green cross)
   (Case T-173/10)
   2010/C 179/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Apotheke DocMorris Holding GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by Y. Dick, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2010 in Case R 1606/2008-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing a green cross, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35 to 42 and 44 (Application No 5 930 946).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Board of Appeal’s finding of distinctiveness was in several respects incorrect.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-201/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-201/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the application by analogy of the limitation rule in Paragraph 195 BGB, in the version in force until the end of 2001, to claims for the repayment of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?

               2.

               Is the application of the 30-year limitation period in Paragraph 195 BGB in relation to the recovery of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of proportionality?

               3.

               If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, is the application of a longer national limitation period within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (1) which is determined on the basis of an emergency judicial power in particular cases, by way of judicial development of the law, compatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-38/09: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2013 — El Corte Inglés v Commission (Customs Union — Import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica — Recovery ‘a posteriori’ of import duties — Application for remission of duties — Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Commission decision rejecting that application — Annulment by the national court of the decision of the national authorities to enter in the accounts duties a posteriori — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/29

         Order of the General Court of 9 December 2013 — El Corte Inglés v Commission
   (Case T-38/09) (1)

   (Customs Union - Import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica - Recovery ‘a posteriori’ of import duties - Application for remission of duties - Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Commission decision rejecting that application - Annulment by the national court of the decision of the national authorities to enter in the accounts duties a posteriori - No need to adjudicate)
   2014/C 45/47
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Baz and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Axstores AB, formerly Åhléns AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented initially by P. Fohlin and U. Käll, subsequently by U. Käll and T. Wetterlundh, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6317 final of 3 November 2008, finding, first, that it is justified to proceed to recovery a posteriori of those import duties not demanded from the applicant and, second, that the remission of those duties is not justified by the existence of a special situation, regarding the import of textiles declared to have originated in Jamaica (Case REM 03/07).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-449/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  17 February 2006  — Commission v Trends and Others (Arbitration clause — Plea of inadmissibility — Action against a company's shareholders)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006 — Commission v Trends and Others
   (Case T-449/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Plea of inadmissibility - Action against a company's shareholders)
   (2006/C 108/40)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties:

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent, and M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers).

      Defendants: Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Marios Kontaratos (Athens), Anastasios Tillis (Neo Irakleio, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Giorgios Argyrakos (Athens), Konstantinos Petrakis (Cholargos, Greece) and Fotini Koutroumpa (Glyfada, Greece).
   Application for
   An order that the defendants repay the amount of the financial contribution overpaid by the European Community in respect of two contracts concluded in implementation of the Community Programme entitled ‘Telemetric systems in the area of transport’.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               In so far as it is directed against Messrs Tillis, Kontaratos, Argyrakos and Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa, the action is dismissed for inadmissibility.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Tillis in respect of his plea of inadmissibility.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-358/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/54/EC — Internal market in electricity — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-358/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/54/EC - Internal market in electricity - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 183/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulation and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-679/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Dimon, Inc., against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2011 in Case T-41/05: Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Dimon Inc., v European Commission

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/20

         Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Dimon, Inc., against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2011 in Case T-41/05: Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Dimon Inc., v European Commission
   (Case C-679/11 P)
   2012/C 73/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc (formerly Dimon, Inc.) (represented by: M Odriozola, A Vide, Lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 in Case T-41/05 insofar as it rejects the pleas in law alleging manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 23(2) Regulation 1/2003 (1), failure to state sufficient reasons and breach of the principle of equal treatment for the finding that Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Dimon, Inc. was jointly and severally liable;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Spain insofar as it relates to the Appellant and reduce the fine imposed on the appellants accordingly; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Alliance One International Inc. Formerly Dimon Inc., (the ‘Appellant’) respectfully request that: i) the judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 in Case T-41/05 be set aside by the Court of Justice insofar as it deems Alliance One International, Inc. (‘AOI’), formerly Dimon Inc., (‘Dimon’) jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by Agroexpansión; that ii) the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Spain be annulled insofar as it relates to the Appellant and that the fine imposed on the Appellant should be reduced accordingly; and iii) the Commission pays the costs.

               2.

               First the Appellant submits that the Commission and the General Court misapplied Article 101(1) of the TFEU Treaty and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 by holding AOI liable for the infringement committed by Agroexpansión. The Appellant submits that the General Court breached its rights of defence and Article 296 TFEU by clarifying in the judgment (and therefore ex post facto) the reasoning regarding the standard of proof applied in the Commission's decision. Consequently, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in defining the method for attributing liability, in particular by adopting a dual basis method, which served to discriminate between companies on the strength of their case on appeal but otherwise failed to establish a standard. In addition, the General Court could not have ignored the fact that the Commission failed to support its views in the decision regarding the absence of a rebuttal.

               3.

               Second, the General Court's judgment deprives the Appellant of its rights derived under the general principles of EU law, the rights contained in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now part of the Lisbon Treaty and therefore having the full weight of primary law.

               4.

               Third, although the General Court confirms that the Appellant could not have been held liable for the infringement on the part of Agroexpansión in respect of the period prior to 18 November 1997, it nevertheless fails to draw the necessary conclusions from the Commission's mistake and allows the Appellant to be discriminated against. First the Appellant submits that the starting amount of the fine should have been increased by only 30 %, otherwise, Dimon would be discriminated against vis-à-vis the other addressees of the decision. Second, the Appellant respectfully submits that the Commission erred in considering Dimon's turnover in 2003 for the purposes of justifying the increase of the starting amount of the fine on the basis of the fifth paragraph of Section 1A of the 1998 Guidelines.

               5.

               Finally, the Appellant respectfully submits that it was entitled to the legitimate expectation that it would benefit from a reduction of the fine pursuant to the third indent of Section B, Point 3 of the 1998 Guidelines on fines. In this regard, the General Court erred because: (i) it considered that the attenuating circumstance was not applicable in this case due to the nature of the infringement; and (ii) accepted the Commission's argument according to which the Appellant already benefited from the attenuating circumstance.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case F-100/14: Action brought on 29 September 2014  — ZZ and Others v Council

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/41

         Action brought on 29 September 2014 — ZZ and Others v Council
   (Case F-100/14)
   (2014/C 448/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for a declaration that Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS, and Article 8 of Annex VII thereto, are inapplicable, and for the annulment of the decisions withdrawing entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses from the place of employment to the place of origin and withdrawing entitlement to travelling time.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare unlawful Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision not to award from 2014 onwards any travelling time or the reimbursement of annual travel expenses to the applicants;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-248/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Sergiu-Dan Dascăl, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana-Maria Oprean, Ionuț Horea Baboș (Directive 2004/39/EC — Markets in financial instruments — Article 4(1)(14) — Concept of ‘regulated market’ — Authorisation — Functional requirements — Market whose legal nature is not specified, but which is managed, after a merger, by a legal person also managing a regulated market — Article 47 — Not included on the list of regulated markets — Directive 2003/6/EC — Scope — Market manipulation)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Sergiu-Dan Dascăl, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana-Maria Oprean, Ionuț Horea Baboș
   (Case C-248/11) (1)

   (Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(14) - Concept of ‘regulated market’ - Authorisation - Functional requirements - Market whose legal nature is not specified, but which is managed, after a merger, by a legal person also managing a regulated market - Article 47 - Not included on the list of regulated markets - Directive 2003/6/EC - Scope - Market manipulation)
   2012/C 133/18
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Sergiu-Dan Dascăl, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana-Maria Oprean, Ionuț Horea Baboș

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Cluj — Interpretation of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1), in particular Articles 4(1)(19), 9 to 14 and 47 — Definition of the concept of ‘regulated market’ — Inclusion of the Rasdaq Exchange, secondary market in financial instruments, not approved by the competent authorities but administered by the Bucharest Exchange, approved as a regulated market — Applicable legal rules — Offence of market manipulation.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that a market in financial instruments which does not satisfy the requirements in Title III of that directive does not fall within the concept of ‘regulated market’, as defined in that provision, notwithstanding the fact that its operator merged with the operator of such a regulated market.

               2.

               Article 47 of Directive 2004/39, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the inclusion of a market on the list of regulated markets referred to in that article is not a precondition for the classification of that market as a regulated market within the meaning of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-430/12: Action brought on 2 October 2012 — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/37

         Action brought on 2 October 2012 — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing)
   (Case T-430/12)
   2012/C 355/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2012 in Case R 793/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘European Network Rapid Manufacturing’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 12, 17 and 42 — Community trade mark No 7 407 968

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: European Commission

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the figurative mark is an imitation from a heraldic point of view of the European emblem

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the figurative mark was declared invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 6ter(1)(a) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property


title: Case C-659/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 December 2013 — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/8

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 December 2013 — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
      (Case C-659/13)
      (2014/C 71/14)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd

         Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it violates Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2)] given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were not sampled in accordance with Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation?

                  2.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation of the market economy treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were not sampled pursuant to Article 17 of the basic antidumping Regulation?

                  3.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation of the market economy treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were sampled pursuant to Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation?

                  4.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Articles 3, 4(1), 5(4), and 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that insufficient Community industry producers cooperated so as to allow the Commission to make a valid injury assessment and, as a result, a valid. Causation assessment?

                  5.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 3(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] and Article 253 of the EC treaty given that evidence in the investigation file showed that the Community industry injury was assessed using materially flawed data, and given that the Regulation does not provide any explanation why this evidence was ignored?

                  6.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 3(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the effects of other factors known to be causing injury were not properly separated and distinguished from the effects of the allegedly dumped imports?

                  7.

                  To what extent may Member State courts rely on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 made by the Court of Justice in the framework of cases C-249/10 P Brosmann and C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang to consider that duties were not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code [Council Regulation 2913/92 (3)] for companies that, just as the Appellants in the Brosmann and Zhejiang Aokang cases, were not sampled but did submit market economy treatment and individual treatment requests that were not examined?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam
      OJ L 275, p. 1

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

         (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
      OJ L 302, p. 1


title: Case C-388/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Directive 2000/78 — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Age discrimination — Dismissal by reason of retirement — Justification)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   (Case C-388/07) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78 - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Age discrimination - Dismissal by reason of retirement - Justification)
   2009/C 102/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England)

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 2(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Scope — National rules allowing employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over by reason of their retirement

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               National rules such as those set out in Regulations 3, 7(4) and (5) and 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 fall within the scope of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure which, like Regulation 3 of the Regulations at issue in the main proceedings, does not contain a precise list of the aims justifying derogation from the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. However, Article 6(1) offers the option to derogate from that principle only in respect of measures justified by legitimate social policy objectives, such as those related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is consonant with such a legitimate aim and whether the national legislative or regulatory authority could legitimately consider, taking account of the Member States' discretion in matters of social policy, that the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim.

               3.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 gives Member States the option to provide, within the context of national law, for certain kinds of differences in treatment on grounds of age if they are ‘objectively and reasonably’ justified by a legitimate aim, such as employment policy, or labour market or vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. It imposes on Member States the burden of establishing to a high standard of proof the legitimacy of the aim relied on as a justification. No particular significance should be attached to the fact that the word ‘reasonably’ used in Article 6(1) of the directive does not appear in Article 2(2)(b) thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-556/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/36

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-556/08)
   (2009/C 44/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, or in any event by failing to fully communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 255, p. 22.


title: Case C-28/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2, 9, 26, 167, 168 and 173 — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person simultaneously carrying out economic and non-economic activities — Holding company supplying services to its subsidiaries free of charge)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/12

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-28/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 9, 26, 167, 168 and 173 - Deduction of input tax - Taxable person simultaneously carrying out economic and non-economic activities - Holding company supplying services to its subsidiaries free of charge))
   (2017/C 112/17)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria — Hungary

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 2, 9, 26, 167, 168 and 173 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as the involvement of a holding company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the management of its subsidiaries, where it has charged those subsidiaries neither for the cost of the services procured in the interest of the group of companies as a whole or in the interest of certain of its subsidiaries, nor for the corresponding VAT, does not constitute an ‘economic activity’, within the meaning of that directive, such a holding company does not have the right to deduct input VAT paid in respect of those services in so far as those services relate to transactions falling outside the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case T-445/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — ABB v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/39

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — ABB v Commission
   (Case T-445/14)
   2014/C 303/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland); and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part Article 1 of the decision finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the (extra) high voltage underground and/or submarine power cable sector insofar as the finding extends to all projects for underground power cables with voltages of 110 kV and above (and not only underground power cable projects with voltages of 220 kV and above);

               —

               annul in part Article 1 of the decision finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the (extra) high voltage underground and/or submarine power cable sector insofar as the finding extends to all accessories relating to underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above (and not only accessories relating to underground power cable projects with voltages of 220 kV and above);

               —

               annul in part Article 1 of the decision insofar as it finds that the applicants’ participation in the infringement started on 1 April 2000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to meet its burden of proof and committed a manifest error of assessment in assuming that the infringement covered all underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above, when the Commission’s file contained clear indications that not all projects with voltages below 220 kV were subject to the infringement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not meet its burden of proof in establishing the applicants’ participation in such an infringement covering all underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in including within the scope of the infringement all underground power cable accessories relating to underground cable projects with a voltage of 110 kV and above, when the evidence in the Commission’s file showed that the infringement extended only to power cables accessories relating to underground power cable projects with a voltage of 220 kV and above.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law when finding that the applicants participated in the infringement as from 1 April 2000.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and breached the presumption of innocence by assuming that the applicants’ participation in the infringement started on the earliest possible date.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned contrary to Article 296 TFEU.


title: Action brought on 11 December 1997 by SUTES SpA and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-315/97)

text:
C 72/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Patrizio Severino             Action brought on 11 December 1997 by SUTES SpA
   against the Commission of the European Communities               and Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                       (Case T-314/97)
                                                                                (Case T-315/97)
                         (98/C 72/37)
                                                                                (98/C 72/38)
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                    An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 December                 Instance of the European Communities on 11 December
1997 by Patrizio Severino, represented by Michele                   1997 by SUTES SpA, Union Beton, Triveneta
Tamburini, Giuseppe E. Cusumano and Franco Colussi, of              Autotrasporti, Roiatti Domenico, Autotrasporti Chiarcossi
the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            Srl, Pontra Srl, Ditta Gualtieri Gianfranco, Udinese
at the Chambers of the latter at 36 Rue de Wiltz.                   Trasporti Srl, Ater Coop., Ecosystem Srl, Smistamento
                                                                    Merci e Portabagagli Scarl, Ditta Tavano Claudio, Trans
                                                                    Est Srl, Cooperativa Friulana Caricatori e Scaricatori,
                                                                    Ditta Manfreda Giovanni, Globaltrans, Autotrasporti
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Liberale Srl, Pecile SpA, All Transport Srl, Calligaro
                                                                    Luciano e Carlo Srl, Autotrasporti F.lli Valsecchi, Friulana
                                                                    Gas Srl, Autotrasporti Simcic Adriano SNC, Car Express
Ð ascertain the existence and extent of its credit with the         di Cantarutti Almo, Italsped Srl, Fau SNC, Ditta
     Commission as provided for in Article 7 of Annex 1 to          Chiarcosso Sante, B.P. Transport SAS, Ditta Bazzichetto
     the contract at issue and order the Commission to pay          Giorgio, Trans Friuli Srl, Ditta Bolzon SNC, Immobiliare
     the relevant amount together with interest at the legal        Comuzzi Claudio SNC, Paulon Autotrasporti Srl, Fratelli
     rate and to pay the costs.                                     Zamboni Autotrasporti, represented by Claudio Mussato,
                                                                    of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at his
                                                                    Chambers at 4 Via Dante, Udine.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant entered into the contract (EU s&T FPJ n.
ERB CIPI CT 950027) with the Commission, which                      Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
provided for the payment of a flat-rate amount                           30 July 1997,
determined on the basis of ECU 10 000 per year per
bursary holder in category 30.
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Since the contract confers jurisdiction on the Community                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
judicature to hear and determine any dispute relating to                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
its performance, the applicant, who holds the view that                  was paid,
Italian law applies, has brought the present action on the
ground of breach of contract.
                                                                    Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The      applicant    considers   in    this    regard   that
notwithstanding the fact that he was a category 30                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
bursary-holder from 5 February 1996 to 5 November
1997 at the Institute for Molecular Science, Okazaki
(Japan) and despite repeated requests to the Commission,            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
the defendant has never paid him the flat-rate amount               relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
provided for in the abovementioned contract, considering            Giulia v. Commission (1).
himself entitled to an amount corresponding to the 21
months of his bursary studies.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-68/03 ( OJ C 247, 20.10.2007, p. 22 )

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/47

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-68/03

      (
            Official Journal of the European Union C 247 of 20 October 2007, p. 22
         )

   (2007/C 283/84)
   The notice in the OJ in Case T-68/03 Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission should read as follows:

         ‘Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission
         (Case T-68/03) (1)

         (State aid - Restructuring aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the airline Olympic Airways - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Misuse of the aid - New aid - Burden of proof - Right to be heard - Private creditor test - Error of fact - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons - Articles 87(1) EC and (3)(c) EC)
         (2006/C 000/01)
         Language of the case: Greek
         Parties

            Applicant: Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE, formerly Olympiaki Aeroporia AE (Athens, Greece) (represented first by D. Waelbroeck and E. Bourtzalas, lawyers, J. Ellison and M. Hall, Solicitors, and A. Kalogeropoulos, C. Tagaras and A. Chiotelis, lawyers, and then by P. Anestis, lawyer, and T. Soames, Solicitor)

            Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. L. Buendía Sierra, acting as Agents, and A. Oikonomou, lawyer)
         Re:
         Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (OJ 2003, L 132, p. 1)
         Operative part of the judgment
         The Court hereby:

                     1.

                     Annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways in so far as they concern tolerance of persistent non-payment of airport charges owed by Olympic Airways to Athens International Airport and of VAT owed by Olympic Aviation on fuel and spare parts.

                     2.

                     Dismisses the remainder of the application.

                     3.

                     Orders Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE to pay 75 % of its own costs and of those of the Commission and orders the Commission to pay 25 % of its own costs and of those of Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.’


title: Case T-458/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2007 — Au Lys de France v Commission (Competition — Dominant position — Market in the supply of sites for the operation of retail businesses at Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle airport held by the operator Aéroports de Paris — Rejection of a complaint — Action for annulment — No Community interest)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2007 — Au Lys de France v Commission
   (Case T-458/04) (1)

   (Competition - Dominant position - Market in the supply of sites for the operation of retail businesses at Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle airport held by the operator Aéroports de Paris - Rejection of a complaint - Action for annulment - No Community interest)
   (2007/C 199/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Au Lys de France SA (Raincy, France) (represented by: G. Lesourd, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, P. Olivier and O. Beynet, and subsequently, P. Olivier, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Aéroports de Paris (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvert and O. Billard, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 17 September 2004 to take no further action on the complaint brought by the applicant against the public undertaking Aéroports de Paris for breach of Article 82 EC (Case COMP/D3/38.666 Au Lys de France/Aéroports de Paris).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Au Lys de France SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45 of 19.2.2005.