title: Case C-60/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 16 December 1999, in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
C 122/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.4.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                   Question 2
Ordinario di Roma — Fourth Labour Chamber — by
order of that court of 1 February 2000, in the case of
                                                                      ‘Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are
Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza
                                                                      not covered by the works directive (Directive 93/37), inasmuch
                         Sociale (INPS)
                                                                      as the threshold value is not exceeded, entitled to stipulate in
                                                                      the tender documents that a specified make must be used in the
                         (Case C-55/00)                               case where the relevant requirement in the tender documents is
                                                                      not accompanied by the words “or an equivalent make”?’
                        (2000/C 122/23)
                                                                      Question 3
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale
Ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court) — Fourth Labour               ‘If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative, can
Chamber — of 1 February 2000, which was received at the               such wording of tender documents as described in Questions 1
Court Registry on 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling          and 2 be regarded as constituting an infringement of Article 12
in the case of Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della              EC or Article 28 EC?’
Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following question on the
interpretation of Articles 6 and 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC):                                         (1) Of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                          the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).
‘Whether or not a worker who is a citizen of a Member State
with a record of payments of social security contributions to
the competent institution of another Member State is entitled
to be awarded an old-age pension on the basis of aggregation
of the contributions paid to the institution of a State outside
the Union under the convention which the Member State has
concluded with the latter and which it applies to its own
citizens.’                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                      Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 16 December
                                                                      1999, in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of
                                                                                State for the Home Department
                                                                                (Case C-60/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/25)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 14 February 2000 in the case of Bent Mousten
             Vestergaard v Spøttrup Boligselskab                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal
                                                                      Tribunal, of 16 December 1999, which was received at the
                         (Case C-59/00)                               Court Registry on 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of State for the
                        (2000/C 122/24)                               Home Department on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In circumstances where:
European Communities by order of 14 February 2000 by the
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received          a) a national of a Member State, who is established in that
at the Court Registry on 23 February 2000, for a preliminary               Member State and who provides services to persons in
ruling in the case of Bent Mousten Vestergaard v Spøttrup                  other Member States; and
Boligselskab on the following questions:
                                                                      b) has a spouse who is not a national of a Member State;
Question 1                                                            can the non-national spouse rely on
‘Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are           1) Article 49 EC and/or
not covered by the works directive (Directive 93/37) (1),
inasmuch as the threshold value is not exceeded, entitled to          2) Directive 73/148/EEC (1)
stipulate in the tender documents that a specified Danish make
must be used in the case where the relevant requirement in the        to provide the non-national spouse with the right to reside
tender documents is not accompanied by the words “or an               with his or her spouse in his or her spouse’s Member State of
equivalent make”?’                                                    origin?
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/15
Is the answer to the question referred different if the non-na-             Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Court of
tional spouse indirectly assists the national of a Member State             Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 18 February
in carrying on the provision of services in other Member States             2000, in the case of Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd against the
by carrying out childcare?                                                                          Scottish Ministers
                                                                                (Case C-64/00)
(1) of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on move and
    residence within the Community for nationals of Member States                                    (2000/C 122/27)
    with regard to establishment and the provision of services, OJ
    L 172, 28.06.1973. p. 14.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                            Scotland, of 18 February 2000, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd against the Scottish
                                                                            Ministers, on the following questions:
                                                                            1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
                                                                                93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak
                                                                                of a List 1 disease a Member State adopts a domestic
                                                                                measure the application of which results in the destruction
                                                                                and slaughter of fish, are the principles of Community
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                        law relating to the protection of fundamental rights in
(England & Wales), by order of that court of 14 December                         particular the right of property, to be interpreted as having
1999, in the case of Marks & Spencer plc against the                             placed on a Member State the obligation to adopt measures
              Commissioners of Customs & Excise                                  providing for the payment of compensation.
                                                                                (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and
                             (Case C-62/00)
                                                                                (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered
                                                                                immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale
                            (2000/C 122/26)                                          of those fish by that owner?
                                                                            2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                          court to determine whether the measures that are adopted
(England & Wales), of 14 December 1999, which was received                       are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
at the Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary                     the right to property, which the Court ensures and which
ruling in the case of Marks & Spencer plc against the                            derive in particular from the European Convention on
Commissioners of Customs & Excise on the following question:                     Human Rights?
                                                                            3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
In the circumstances in which a member State has failed to                       differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
implement properly in its domestic legislation Article 11. A of                  the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
Council Directive 77/388 (1), is it compatible with the principle                concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
of the effectiveness of the rights that a taxable person derives                 fault?
from Article 11.A, or with the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations, to enforce legislation which removes               4. Is Directive 93/53/EEC invalid as being in breach of the
with retrospective effect a right under national law to reclaim                  fundamental right of property in not making provision for
sums paid, by way of VAT, more than three years before the                       the payment of compensation to (a) an owner of fish
claim is made?                                                                   which are destroyed and (b) to an owner of fish which are
                                                                                required to be slaughtered immediately, thereby necessitat-
                                                                                ing the immediate sale of those fish by that owner
                                                                                in circumstances where an outbreak of ISA has been
(1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member                confirmed?
    States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
    added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.06.1977,
    p. 1, rectificatif OJ L 149, 17.06.1977, p. 26.                         (1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC, of 24 June 1993, introducing
                                                                                minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish
                                                                                diseases OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.


title: Case C-133/14: Action brought on 21 March — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/25

         Action brought on 21 March — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-133/14)
   2014/C 175/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Council Directives 91/271/EEC and 1999/74/EC, and Directives 2000/60/EC, 2006/7/EC, 2006/25/EC and 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union (1);

               —

               Maintain the effects of Directive 2013/64/EU until such time as a new directive founded on an appropriate legal basis enters into effect;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission seeks the annulment of Directive 2013/64/EU, which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
   The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that directive when it had proposed to base that act on a sectoral legal basis, namely Articles 43(2), 114, 153(2), 168 and 192(1) TFEU.
   It considers that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested directive, Article 349 TFEU cannot validly be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU only applies when derogating from the principle of the application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the directive in question, if it is not to derogate from the Treaties, only adapts the secondary law in order to respond to the situation created by the change in status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty, and by the historical origins of that article.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 355, p. 8.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94: Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European Communities (Common organization of the market - Bananas - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Legality of reduction coefficient - Action for damages)

text:
22 . 2 . 97          [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/ 17
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 11 December 1996                                                  of 12 December 1996
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 : Henk Altmann
in Case T-70/94 : Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit                 and Others and Margaret Casson and Others v.
Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European                               Commission of the European Communities (')
                         Communities (')
                                                                     (JET Joint Undertaking — Persons claiming the status of
(Common organization of the market — Bananas —                                       members of the temporary staff)
Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legality of                                              ( 97/C 54/25 )
          reduction coefficient — Action for damages)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           ( 971C 54/24 )
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-177/94, Henk Altmann, residing at
                                                                     Wantage, Oxfordshire , United Kingdom, and 56 other
                 (Language of the case: English)                     applicants, represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri
                                                                     Thompson , Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
                                                                     having an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Messrs Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich ,
In Case T-70/94 : Comafrica SpA, established in Genes                against Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
( Italy ), and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co .,                   Hans Gerald Crossland ), supported by Council of the
established in Hamburg ( Germany ), represented by                   European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan-Peter
Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, with an address for service in          Hix, and initially Yves Crétien ), and T-377/94 , Margaret
Luxembourg at the offices of Stanbrook and Hooper at                 Casson , residing at Chilton, Oxfordshire, United
the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la               Kingdom, and 13 other applicants, represented by
Foire v. Commission of the European Communities                      Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri Thompson, Barrister, of
( Agents : Eugenio de March , Xavier Lewis and John                  the Bar of England and Wales, having an address for
Handoll ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
and Northern Ireland, ( Agents : initially Lucinda Hudson            Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of
and then by John E. Collins, Lindsey Nicoll and David                the European Communities ( Agents : Hans Gerald
Anderson ) — application for annulment of Article 1 of               Crossland and Julian Currall ), supported by Council of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3190/93 of 19 November               the European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan
1993 fixing the uniform reduction coefficient for                    Peter Hix , and initially Yves Crétien ) — applications
determining the quantities of bananas to be allocated to             primarily for annulment of the Commission 's decisions
each operator in categories A and B in the context of the            refusing to appoint the applicants as members of its
tariff quota 1994 , on the one hand, and for compensation            temporary staff and for reparation of the damage suffered
for damage caused to the applicants by the allegedly                 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
unlawful decisions fixing reduction coefficients in 1993             composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy and
and      1994 — the Court of First Instance            ( Fourth      A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh             Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio-Gonzalez,                        12 December 1996, in which it:
Administrator, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 ,
the operative part of which is as follows :                          1 . Takes formal note of the withdrawal from the
                                                                         proceedings of Mr D. Hurford, 26th applicant in Case
                                                                          T-177/94, and removes Case T-177/94 from the
                                                                          register in so far as he is concerned.
 1 . The application is dismissed.
                                                                     2 . Annuls the Commission 's decisions, dated 14 January
                                                                         and 16 September 1994 respectively, not to recruit the
                                                                          other applicants to posts on the temporary staff of the
2 . The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                          Community.
                                                                     3 . Dismisses the remainder of the applications.
3 . The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs .                     4 . Orders the defendant to hear its own costs and to pay
                                                                          those of the applicants, with the exception of those of
                                                                          Mr D. Hurford, and Mr D. Hurford and the
                                                                          intervener each to hear their own costs.
 O OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .


title: Case T-619/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Carla Faita against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11, Faita v EESC

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/36

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Carla Faita against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11, Faita v EESC
   (Case T-619/13 P)
   2014/C 24/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Carla Faita (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, M. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11 (Faita v EESC);

               —

               order the EESC to pay the appellant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law as regards the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure and the principle of sound administration, the Civil Service Tribunal not having found fault with the fact that the rejection of the complaint contained identical reasoning, word for word, to that to that in the rejection of the application against which the complaint was brought, despite the fact that the complaint contained different arguments to those in the application (relating to paragraphs 44 and 65 to 67 of the contested judgment).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging first, an infringement of the rights of the defence, to the extent that the appellant did not have the opportunity to make an argument during the procedure in front of the Civil Service Tribunal when the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appointing authority relied on a fifth implicit reason in its decision to reject the appellant’s application and, second, an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal undertook an analysis of the conditions laid down in Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in its review of legality of the application of Article 24 of those Regulations (relating to paragraphs 94 and onwards in the judgment under appeal).


title: Case C-153/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov — Slovakia) — Pohotovosť s. r. o. v Ján Soroka (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope ratione temporis — Events preceding the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/5

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov — Slovakia) — Pohotovosť s. r. o. v Ján Soroka
   (Case C-153/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope ratione temporis - Events preceding the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 261/06
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Bardejov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pohotovosť s. r. o.

      Defendant: Ján Soroka

      Intervener: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Okresný súd Bardejov (Slovakia) by decision of 15 February 2013.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-180/08 and C-186/08: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis, Greece) — Maria Kastrinaki v Panepistimiako Geniko Nosokomeio Thessalonikis AHEPA (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/48/EEC — Recognition of diplomas — Studies completed in an independent study centre not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/25

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis, Greece) — Maria Kastrinaki v Panepistimiako Geniko Nosokomeio Thessalonikis AHEPA
   (Joined Cases C-180/08 and C-186/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of diplomas - Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State)
   (2009/C 44/41)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis
   Parties

      Appellant: Maria Kastrinaki

      Respondent: Panepistimiako Geniko Nosokomeio Thessalonikis AHEPA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Interpretation of Article 39(1) EC, the first paragraph of Article 10 EC and Articles 43, 47(1), 49, 55, 149 and 150 EC — National of a Member State who has pursued a regulated profession in the host Member State before and after recognition of professional equivalence resulting from academic qualifications obtained in another Member State — Prior completion of part of university studies, under a franchising agreement, in an institution not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State — Possibility, by reason of a refusal to recognise such qualifications, of excluding a worker from professional activity
   Operative part of the order
   The competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under Article 3 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, to permit a national of a Member State who holds a diploma within the meaning of that directive issued by a competent authority of another Member State to pursue his profession on the same conditions as apply to holders of national diplomas even though that diploma:

               —

               attests to education and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment, and

               —

               has not been homologated by the competent national authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-620/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Marchi Industriale v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Determination of the size of the undertaking — Power of the ECHA — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Marchi Industriale v ECHA
   (Case T-620/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Determination of the size of the undertaking - Power of the ECHA - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 402/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Marchi Industriale SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri and F. Donati, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented initially by M. Heikkilä, A. Iber, E. Bigi, J.-P. Trnka and E. Maurage, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, E. Bigi, J.-P. Trnka and E. Maurage, Agents, and by C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Decision SME(2013) 3747 of the ECHA of 19 September 2013, which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it and, second, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the invoices issued by the ECHA following adoption of Decision SME(2013) 3747.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marchi Industriale SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-240/08: Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/60

         Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)
   (Case T-240/08)
   (2008/C 209/108)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: N. Beckett and T. Scourfield, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Alcala Farma SL (Alcala de Henares, Spain).
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 April 2008 in case R 1481/2007-2 and of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 July 2007 in opposition proceedings No B 893 216;

               —

               allow the applicant's opposition to the registration as a Community trade mark of the application dated 4 October 2004 for the figurative mark ‘oli’ for goods in classes 3 and 5;

               —

               order OHIM to refuse registration of the said application dated 4 October 2004: and

               —

               order the other parties hereto to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘oli’ for goods in classes 3 and 5 — application No 4 059 176

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Community trade marks ‘OLAY’ for goods in classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade marks concerned are similar and the use of the trade mark applied for is likely to cause confusion.


title: Case C-316/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen lodged on 9 July 2007 — Markus Stoß v Wetteraukreis

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen lodged on 9 July 2007 — Markus Stoß v Wetteraukreis
   (Case C-316/07)
   (2007/C 269/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Giessen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Markus Stoß

      Defendant: Wetteraukreis
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, in particular because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage participation in other gaming — such as State-run lotteries and casino games — and, moreover, other games with the same or a higher suspected potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (e.g. horse racing) and slot machines — may be provided by private service providers?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State bodies specifically designated for that purpose by the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts also in other Member States without any additional national authorisations being required?


title: Case T-512/11: Action brought on 24 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/40

         Action brought on 24 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-512/11)
   2011/C 347/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               To declare, in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the part of the European Commission’s Decision of 13 July 2011 in State aid case SA.29064 (2011/C ex 2011/NN) — Ireland — Air Transport — Exemptions from air passenger tax finding that the exemption of transfer and transit traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax does not constitute State aid, is void;

               —

               To order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and

               —

               To take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the exemption of transfer and traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (1), in so far as it has failed to initiate the procedure provided for in those provisions, in relation to the aid covered by the first part of the contested Decision, despite the existence of, at a minimum, serious doubts as to the compatibility of the exemption of transfer and transit traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax with the common market, and has therefore violated the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation No 659/1999.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant is in breach of its obligation to state reasons, as it provided defective statements of reasons marked by contradictions and overgeneralization.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)


title: Case C-50/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Consorzio Artigiano Servizio Taxi e Autonoleggio (CASTA) and Others v Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4), Regione Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public contracts — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Directive 2004/18/CE — Medical transport services — National legislation authorising regional health authorities to entrust medical transport activities to registered voluntary associations fulfilling the legal requirements, directly and without advertising, by means of reimbursement of the expenditure incurred — Lawfulness)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Consorzio Artigiano Servizio Taxi e Autonoleggio (CASTA) and Others v Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4), Regione Piemonte
   (Case C-50/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/CE - Medical transport services - National legislation authorising regional health authorities to entrust medical transport activities to registered voluntary associations fulfilling the legal requirements, directly and without advertising, by means of reimbursement of the expenditure incurred - Lawfulness))
   (2016/C 106/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Consorzio Artigiano Servizio Taxi e Autonoleggio (CASTA), Galati Lucimorto Roberto — Autonoleggio Galati, Seren Bernardone Guido — Autonoleggio Seren Guido

      Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4), Regione Piemonte

      Intervening parties: Associazione Croce Bianca del Canavese and Others, Associazione Nazionale Pubblica Assistenza (ANPAS) — Comitato Regionale Liguria

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows local authorities to entrust the provision of medical transport services by direct award, without any form of advertising, to voluntary associations, provided that the legal and contractual framework in which the activity of those associations is carried out actually contributes to the social purpose and the pursuit of the objectives of the good of the community and budgetary efficiency;

               2.

               Where a Member State allows public authorities to make direct use of voluntary associations to carry out certain tasks, a public authority which intends to conclude contracts with such associations is not required, under EU law, to compare the proposals of various associations beforehand;

               3.

               Where a Member State, which allows public authorities to make direct use of voluntary associations to carry out certain tasks, authorises those associations to engage in certain commercial activities, that Member State must establish the limits within which those activities may be carried out. Those limits must nevertheless ensure that those commercial activities are marginal, having regard to all the activities of such associations, and must support the pursuit of their voluntary activity.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-364/03: Action brought on 22 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
18.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of
that court dated 28 July 2003, in the case of Fulcrum
Electronics Ltd (in Liquidation) against Commissioners                   The abovementioned DEI power station unquestionably falls
                      of Customs and Excise                              within the category of industrial plants listed in Annex I to
                                                                         Directive 84/360 and is an ‘existing plant’ within the meaning
                          (Case C-355/03)                                of Article 2(3) of that directive. Therefore, the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic is obliged, under Article 13 of the directive, to imple-
                          (2003/C 251/13)                                ment a policy and strategy including appropriate measures for
                                                                         the adaptation of that plant to the best available technology. In
                                                                         accordance with Article 16 of the directive, that obligation has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   existed since 30 June 1987, but the Hellenic Republic has not
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    yet determined appropriate policies and strategies.
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 28 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 August
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fulcrum                    (1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.
Electronics Ltd (in Liquidation) against Commissioners of
Customs and Excise on the questions which are identical to
those in Case C-354/03 (1).
(1) See page 6 of this Official Journal.                                 Action brought on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-370/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 251/15)
Action brought on 22 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                          (Case C-364/03)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic
                          (2003/C 251/14)                                Republic, represented by G. Kanellopoulos, a Member of the
                                                                         State Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                         at the Greek Embassy, 27 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                         The applicant asks the Court to:
Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and
M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision 2003/481/EC in so far as
                                                                               concerns the particular chapter concerning the charging
                                                                               to the budget of the Member State rather than to the
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                               EAGGF Guarantee Section the sum not recoverable by the
                                                                               Greek authorities of DR 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884,90);
—     declare that, by failing to determine policies and strategies
      for the gradual adaptation of the steam-turbine and gas-           —     order that the financial consequences of the non-recovery
      turbine units of the DEI (Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou;                of the above sum should be borne by the Community.
      State Electricity Undertaking) power station at
      Linoperamata, Crete, to the best available technology,
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      under Article 13 of Council Directive 84/360/EEC (1) of
      28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from
      industrial plants;
                                                                         —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
                                                                               since Greece was not invited by the Commission to a
                                                                               discussion in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            No 1663/96;


20150731008616602015/C 270/08512014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506117711Case C-51/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Reimbursement of storage costs — Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 — Article 14(3) — Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Article 2(2) — Substitute exports of C sugar — Conditions — Actual exchange of C sugar with the replacement sugar — Replacement possible only with sugar produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State — Validity in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN710120150611EN00087171Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-51/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Reimbursement of storage costs — Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 — Article 14(3) — Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Article 2(2) — Substitute exports of C sugar — Conditions — Actual exchange of C sugar with the replacement sugar — Replacement possible only with sugar produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State — Validity in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU)’2015/C 270/08Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 14(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988, and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3892/88 of 14 December 1988, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where a manufacturer wishes to replace a quantity of C sugar for export by an equivalent quantity of sugar under quota produced by another manufacturer, it is appropriate to have regard to the requirements set out in the latter provision as regards reimbursement of storage costs. Those requirements include, in particular, that the replacement sugar must have been produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State. Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of that provision.

            2.

            Article 14(3) of Regulation No 1998/78 and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81 must be interpreted as not requiring, for the proper substitution of sugar for export, that the initial quantity of C sugar and the quantity of replacement sugar be physically substituted by the manufacturer.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Action brought on 12 September 1997 by T. Port GmbH & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-251/97)

text:
C 357/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22 . 11 . 97
Action brought on 29 August 1997 by Kaufhof                           imposed in the regulation did not enter into force until
Warenhaus AG against the Commission of the European                    14 June 1997.
                            Communities
                         ( Case T-245/97)                             The applicant submits that by virtue of the Community
                                                                      case-law on the calculation of time-limits the final date for
                           ( 97/C 357/57                              the imposition of the anti-dumping duties in question was
                                                                       13 June 1997. The regulation must be regarded as
                                                                      unlawful on account of failure to observe the time-limit
                 (Language of the case: English)                      prescribd by Article 7 ( 1 ) of the basic regulation for the
                                                                      imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties.
An action against the Commission of the European                      (') OJ L 156, 13 . 6 . 1997, p. 11 .
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     ( 2 ) According to Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation No 384/96
Instance of the European Communities on 29 August                           of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
 1997 by Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, represented by Ursula                        from countries not members of the European Communities
Schliessner, Rechtsanwalt, Diisseldorf, instructed by James                 ( OJ L 56 , 6 . 3 . 1997, p. 1 ), 'The provisional duties shall be
Searles of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Brussels, with                     imposed no earlier than 60 days from the initiation of the
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                       proceedings but not later than nine months from the initiation
Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                 of the proceedings .'
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to                 Action brought on 12 September 1997 by T. Port GmbH
     Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1069/97 and,                               & Co. against the Commission of the European
     consequently, the regulation itself, illegal and void,                                           Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-251/97)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant                                             ( 97/C 357/58 )
     in the present proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 12 September
The applicant, a major German importer and retailer of                1997 by T. Port GmbH & Co., Hamburg, represented by
certain bed linen from various third countries, challenges            Gert Meier, Cologne, with an address for service in
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1069/97 of 12 June                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on                      Marie-Adelaide .
imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt,
India and Pakistan (').
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
The single ground of illegality put forward is that,                  — annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty
contrary to the nine-month time-limit prescribed by the                       and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission
basic anti-dumping regulation for the imposition of                           of 9 July 1997 refusing to adopt transitional measures
provisional anti-dumping duties, the contested regulation                     in favour of T. Port under the common organization of
by its own terms enters into force after the expiry of that                   the market in bananas,
period (2 ).
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
The applicant states that, acting on a complaint lodged
with the European Commission on 30 July 1996 by the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of
the European Communities ( Eurocotton ), the defendant                The applicant, an undertaking which trades in bananas,
initiated the anti-dumping investigation relating to the              had applied on 16 December 1996 for the allocation of
present case by a notice published in the Official Journal            additional import licences for third country bananas under
of the European Communities on 13 September 1996 .                    the rules on tariff quotas, pursuant to Article 30 of
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the contested regulation provides that 'this       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ('). Following the
Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its            failure to make a decision on that application, the
publication in the Official Journal of the European                   applicant brought an action on 27 February 1997 ( Case
Communities'. The regulation was published in OJ L 156,               T-39/97) for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the
13 . 6 . 1997. This means that, according to the terms of             Commission had infringed Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93
the Commission's own provision, the anti-dumping duties               by not granting the import licences applied for.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97          IEN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 357/31
By the decision of 9 July 1997 which is now being                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
challenged, the Commission refused the application made
by the applicant on 16 December 1996 .
                                                                       By the contested decision, the application made by the
                                                                       applicant for the award of additional licences to import
The applicant relies on a number of incidents (colapse of              bananas within the framework of the customs quota,
businesses, criminal activities) with South American                   pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 ('),
contractual partners or potential contractual partners                 was granted only in part.
which, it contends, amount to force majeure and justify
the adoption of arrangements to cater for a case of
hardship, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of              In 1991 , the applicant had concluded a long-term contract
Justice (2). Furthermore, the applicant had concluded a                with an Ecuadorian undertaking. That contract contains a
preliminary contract in November 1991 with a South                     guarantee by the applicant as regards the difference with
American undertaking. At that time it was not to be                    the official producer prices in Ecuador and an obligation
envisaged that the external trade rules of the Community               on it to pay to its contractual partner compensation of up
system for bananas would consist of quota rules with                   to US $ 1 million, if it terminates the contract before the
favourable tariffs . The applicant should not under any                agreed date on grounds other than those provided for in
circumstances have had to anticipate a flagrant                        the contract. A restriction on imports was not agreed as a
infringement of the GATT, as was established by the                    ground for termination since, at that time, the parties to
GATT Panel in January 1994. It could have expected that                the agreement still did not have any idea of the structure
it would not be impeded when it marketed in the                        of an EC market organization for bananas. In particular,
Community through quotas the quantities contracted for                 the applicant should have been able to assume that a
with its contractual partner.                                          future EC market organization for bananas would comply
                                                                       with the GATT and, at any rate, that the quantities
                                                                       contracted for would be allowed to be marketed in the
(') OJ L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
(2 ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und      Community unhindered by quotas.
     Ernährung [ 1996] ECR 1-6065 .
                                                                       The applicant contends that its inability to import the
                                                                       bananas into the Community because it does not have an
                                                                       import licence amounts to a circumstance which satisfies
                                                                       all the preconditions for the adoption of arrangements to
                                                                       cater for a case of hardship.
Action brought on 16 September 1997 by Anton Diirbeck
        GmbH against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               The applicant challenged, in addition to the part of the
                          ( Case T-252/97)
                                                                       decision refusing the grant of the licences, the provision
                                                                       under which the licences granted on grounds of hardship
                            ( 97/C 357/59 )                            are not to be taken into account in calculating its
                                                                       reference quantities for future years. The contested
                 (Language of the case: German)                        decision adopted by the Commission not only infringes
                                                                       Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 as interpreted by the
                                                                       Court of Justice in its case-law ( 2 ) but also constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European                       misuse of powers.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 September
                                                                       (') OJ L 47, 25 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .
 1997 by Anton Diirbeck GmbH, Frankfurt am Main,                        ( 2 ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                        Ernährung [ 1996] ECR 1-6065 .
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Marc Baden, 24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty                  Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Fruchthandels
      and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission             gesellschaft mbH Chemnitz against the Commission of the
      of 10 July 1997 on the adoption of transitional                                         European Communities
      measures in favour of A. Diirbeck under the common
                                                                                (Case T-254/97)
      organization of the market in bananas in so far as,
      pursuant to Article 1 ( 6 ) of the decision, the licences                                    ( 97/C 357/60 )
      granted on grounds of hardship are not to be taken
      into account in calculating the applicant's reference
      quantities for future years and, under Article 2, the                              (Language of the case: German)
      further applications made by the applicant on
      24 December 1996 were rejected,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Instance of the European Communities on 19 September


title: Case T-368/17: Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Shape of electrically operated lifting column)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/45

         Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Shape of electrically operated lifting column)
   (Case T-368/17)
   (2017/C 249/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Linak A/S (Nordborg, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Electrically operated lifting column’ — Community design No 101 159-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 1412/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the Applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-560/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Wam Industriale SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Wam Industriale SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission

   (Case C-560/12 P)
   2013/C 63/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Wam Industriale SpA (represented by: E. Giuliani and R. Bertoni, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, notified on 1 October 2012, in Case T-303/10 concerning an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29);

               —

               annul, on the grounds set out below, Commission Decision 2011/134/EU by establishing and declaring that the aid referred to in the 1995 contract and in the 2000 contract is compatible with the common market;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Breach of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 266 TFEU, manifest error of assessment and — contrary to Article 296 TFEU — a failure to state reasons, in that the European Commission has failed to comply with the judgments of the General Court and of the Court of Justice annulling the European Commission’s decision of 19 May 2004, having adopted a new decision concerning the same State aid, even though the annulment of the previous decision did not relate to formal or procedural defects.
   Breach of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(1) TFEU, Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and Article 296 TFEU, in finding that the alleged State aid came within the scope of Article 108 TFEU, even though it was aid intended for the penetration of non-EU markets; in not having taken into consideration the fact that the alleged State aid in question had been granted pursuant to Italian Law No 394 of 29 July 1981, notified to the European Commission, albeit not in advance, pursuant to Article 108(3) [TFEU]; and in not having taken the view that the aid in question had been implicitly approved within the terms of Articles 2(2) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
   Breach of Articles 107(3) TFEU and 108(1) TFEU, breach of Regulations (EC) No 800/2008, (2) No 1998/2006, (3) No 69/2001 (4) and No 70/2001 (5) and — contrary to Article 296 TFEU — a failure to state reasons, in not having regarded the aid in question as constituting an application of a general scheme; in not having classified that aid as compatible aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since the promotion of the internationalisation of businesses would have fostered the development of Community businesses; in having considered the aid to be export aid or aid for export-related activities and not, instead, to be aid intended to promote market penetration in non-EU countries; and in not having placed that aid under the exemption threshold provided for by the de minimis regulations.
   Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of an incorrect calculation of the grant equivalent.
   Breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, in having imposed a recovery order in respect of aid which was attributable to the general scheme of 1981, a scheme of which the Commission was aware and which had not been declared unlawful by any European authority.
   Breach of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and infringement of the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence in that the Commission failed to carry out additional measures of inquiry in order to overcome the shortcomings identified by the Community Courts, and in not having promoted the necessary inter partes discussions with Wam and the Italian authorities.
   Infringement of the principle of sound administration, the principle of diligence and the duty of care, in that the present dispute has lasted for 17 years from the date on which the first aid measure was granted.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 379, p. 5.

      (4)  OJ 2001 L 10, p. 30.

      (5)  OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33.


title: Case C-352/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2010 — Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E.

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/18

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2010 — Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E.
      (Case C-352/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/29)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso

         Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E.

         Question referred

      Must Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1) of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises be interpreted restrictively so as not to cover a contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium to be invested, in varying proportions, in fixed-rate investments, variable-rate investments and financial investment products of the company itself?

         (1)  OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31.


title: Case T-358/12 P: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Conticchio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Decision concerning the calculation of pension rights — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/24

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Conticchio v Commission
   (Case T-358/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Decision concerning the calculation of pension rights - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 336/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Rosella Conticchio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Tortora, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case F-22/11 Conticchio v Commission ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-93/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/31

         Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-93/07)
   (2007/C 117/49)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Memorandum No 175 of 11.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: Programma POR Sicilia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 011);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 234 of 12.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: Programma POR Sicilia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 011);

               —

               annul all connected and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied upon in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case T-164/15: Action brought on 31 March 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/17

         Action brought on 31 March 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament
   (Case T-164/15)
   (2015/C 228/21)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Ambazis and M. Sfiri, lawyers

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament which was made known to the applicants by letter D(2015)7680 of 13 February 2015 and which ranked in third place the applicants’ tender for one of eight separate lots and in particular Lot 3, within the framework of the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 in the ITS14 framework agreement, which the applicants evaluate ex aequo et bono at one million, five hundred thousand euros (EUR 1 5 00  000), with interest from the date of that decision or such other amount as the Court deems appropriate, and

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicants’ entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, due to the fact that the Parliament infringed:

               1.

               the obligation to state reasons, and provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the assessment of the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the tendering procedure at issue, while it failed to give details of the economic offers of the successful consortiums;

               2.

               the terms of the contractual documents (the tender specification and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, and applied for the assessment of the economic offers of the tenderers a method of calculation which differed from that which was which was set by the said documents, and

               3.

               the terms of the contractual documents and EU law, since it refrained from identification and examination of the issue of the excessively low offers which were submitted.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) in Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd and Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) — Deduction of input tax — Economic activity — Taxable person acting as such — Supply of goods — Transaction forming part of a chain of supply involving a defaulting trader or a trader using an unauthorised VAT number — Carousel fraud)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) in Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd and Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
       (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) - Deduction of input tax - Economic activity - Taxable person acting as such - Supply of goods - Transaction forming part of a chain of supply involving a defaulting trader or a trader using an unauthorised VAT number - Carousel fraud)
   (2006/C 74/01)
   Language of the cases: English
   In Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decisions of 28 July 2003 (C-354/03 and C-355/03) and 27 October 2003 (C-484/03), received at the Court on 18 August 2003 and 19 November 2003 respectively, in the proceedings between Optigen Ltd (C-354/03), Fulcrum Electronics Ltd (C-355/03), Bond House Systems Ltd (C-484/03) and Commissioners of Customs & Excise — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it rules:
   Transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are not themselves vitiated by value added tax fraud, constitute supplies of goods or services effected by a taxable person acting as such and an economic activity within the meaning of Articles 2(1), 4 and 5(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, where they fulfil the objective criteria on which the definitions of those terms are based, regardless of the intention of a trader other than the taxable person concerned involved in the same chain of supply and/or the possible fraudulent nature of another transaction in the chain, prior or subsequent to the transaction carried out by that taxable person, of which that taxable person had no knowledge and no means of knowledge. The right to deduct input value added tax of a taxable person who carries out such transactions cannot be affected by the fact that in the chain of supply of which those transactions form part another prior or subsequent transaction is vitiated by value added tax fraud, without that taxable person knowing or having any means of knowing.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.

      OJ C 35 of 07.02.2004.


title: Case T-240/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by Koninklĳke Cooperatie Cosun U.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.10.2002
Action brought on 9 August 2002 by Koninklijke Co-                        The applicant first submits that the decision under challenge is
operatie Cosun U.A. against the Commission of the                         contrary to Articles 1 and 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 in so
                     European Communities                                 far as the Commission does not treat the extra charges as being
                                                                          import or export duties. According to the decision, those
                                                                          charges do not come within the scope of Regulation No 1430/
                         (Case T-240/02)                                  79 and cannot be remitted. The applicant, however, contends
                                                                          that the charge is an import or export duty and that Regulation
                         (2002/C 247/35)                                  No 1430/79 does indeed apply. It argues that the charge has
                                                                          the same objective as a customs duty and is for the same
                                                                          amount as a customs duty. Consequently, non-exported
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         C sugar ought to be treated in the same way as sugar imported
                                                                          from non-member countries.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant goes on to contend that the decision under
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                challenge is at variance with the principles of equal treatment
European Communities on 9 August 2002 by Koninklijke                      and equity. As a result of that decision the applicant has no
Coöperatie Cosun U.A., having its registered office in Breda,             entitlement whatever to remission of the extra charge even
represented by M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder.                             though no negligence can be attributed to it and it is in a
                                                                          special situation. The applicant claims that it is thereby being
                                                                          treated differently to an undertaking requesting remission of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               import or export duties. This also creates a gap in the legal
                                                                          protection afforded it. This gap, the applicant argues, is at odds
—     Annul European Commission Decision C(2002) 1580                     with the principle of legal certainty.
      final (file number REM 19/01) of 2 May 2002 addressed
      to the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-                    common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981
      ings.                                                                    L 177 of 01.7.1981, pp 4-31).
                                                                          (2 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
                                                                               1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar
                                                                               production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262 of 16.9.1981,
                                                                               pp 14-16).
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                               repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
                                                                               L 175 of 12.7.1979, pp 1-7).
The applicant manufactured so-called C sugar. This sugar must             (4 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
be exported from the Community not later than one year after                   establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302 of
                                                                               19.10.1992, pp 1-50).
the year of production. Failing this, extra charges are imposed
in accordance with Regulations No 1785/81 (1) and No 2670/
81 (2).
In 1993 the applicant sold C sugar to third parties, which were
to export it from the Community. However, the Nederlandse
Fiscale Inlichtingen en Opsporingsdienst (Netherlands Fiscal
Intelligence and Investigation Service) established that fraud            Action brought on 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut
had been committed during transportation and that the C sugar                  against Commission of the European Communities
had in fact not been exported from the Community. In the
interests of the investigation, the applicant was at first not
informed of these developments. It was, however, ascertained                                        (Case T-241/02)
that the applicant was not itself involved in the fraud. Despite
this, the fact that the applicant had been kept in the dark with
regard to the fraud meant that it was unable to export the                                          (2002/C 247/36)
sugar within the prescribed period and thus avoid incurring
the extra charges for non-exported C sugar.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant thereupon sought remission of the extra charges
on the basis of Regulation No 1430/79 (3), replaced by
Regulation No 2913/92 (4). It argued that no negligence or                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
manipulative conduct could be attributed to it and that it was            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
also in a special situation inasmuch as it had not been                   European Communities on 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut,
immediately informed of the fraud. The Commission rejected                residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by
its request for remission in the decision under challenge.                Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.


title: Removal from the register of C-273/96

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 199/21
          Removal from the register of C-202/96 (')                             Removal from the register of C-273/96 ( l )
                           ( 97/C 199/55 )                                                         ( 97/C 199/58 )
By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Case C-202/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                from the register of Case C-273/96 ( Reference for a
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris ): Societe des Labora             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
toires Valda v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Regularisation              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
du Marche du Sucre ( FIRS ).                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Bartolomeo Terranova.
H OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-271/96 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/56 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-295/96 ( ' )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                               97/C 199/59 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-271/96 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 17 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-295/96 : Commission
against Antonio Nardi .
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(■) OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .                                       (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-272/96 H
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-296/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 199/57 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/60 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-272/96 ( Reference for a                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-296/96 ( Reference for a
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Alfredo Cipriani .                                             Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto Division )):
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola .
 (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case T-333/13: Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Westermann Lernspielverlag/OHIM — Diset (bambinoLÜK)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/36

         Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Westermann Lernspielverlag/OHIM — Diset (bambinoLÜK)
   (Case T-333/13)
   2013/C 252/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (Braunschweig, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [OHIM] of 3 April 2013, Case R 1323/2012-2, relating to the opposition proceedings No. B 1 724 593 [Community trade mark application 009080359] between DISET, S.A. and Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH;

               —

               Order the Defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘bambinoLÜK’, for goods in classes 9, 16 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 080 359

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark of the figurative mark ‘BAMBINO’ for goods in classes 16, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partly upheld the appeal and allows the CTM application to proceed for certain goods of class 9

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-322/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2006/613/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Challengeable act — Lack of direct effect — Inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission
   (Case T-322/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2006/613/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Challengeable act - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Manuel José Espinosa Labella (Almería, Spain); Josefa Labella Dávalos (Almería); María Pilar Espinosa Labella (Almería); María José Espinosa Labella (Almería); Tomasa Peñuela Ortiz (Almería); Tomás Espinosa Peñuela (Almería); Francisco José Espinosa Peñuela (Mairena del Aljarafe, Spain); Juan Manuel Espinosa Peñuela (Madrid, Espagne); María Lourdes Espinosa Peñuela (Almería); Adela Espinosa Peñuela (Almería); Jorge Jesús Espinosa Peñuela (Almería) and the heirs of de Rafael Espinosa Peñuela (Almería) (represented by: M.J. Rovira Daudí, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Artos de El Ejido’, which includes lands belonging to the applicants, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Manuel José Espinosa Labella, Josefa Labella Dávalos, María Pilar Espinosa Labella, María José Espinosa Labella, Tomasa Peñuela Ortiz, Tomás Espinosa Peñuela, Francisco José Espinosa Peñuela, Juan Manuel Espinosa Peñuela, María Lourdes Espinosa Peñuela, Adela Espinosa Peñuela; Jorge Jesús Espinosa Peñuela and the heirs of Rafael Espinosa Peñuela are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.