title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2002 in Case T-25/01: Francisco Miguel França v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Special leave for voting — Travelling time — Supporting evidence — Lack of jurisdiction — Duty of cooperation and fairness — Principle of proportionality — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
C 323/34                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
                         of 9 October 2002
                                                                            in Case T-6/02: Michael Gerhard Franz Platte v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-134/01: Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG v
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                         (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
                                                                                Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
(Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 — Regulation (EC) No 1135/                                               (2002/C 323/55)
1999 — Food-aid to Russia — Invitation to tender for
mobilisation — Invitation to tender for transport — Contrac-                                    (Language of the case: French)
tual relationship — Arbitration clause — Claim for perform-
ance of a contract — Admissibility — Provision of certifi-
     cates for each means of transport — Default interest)
                                                                            In Case T-6/02: Michael Gerhard Franz Platte, an official of the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tielt-
                                                                            Winge, Belgium, represented by X. De Kesel and S. Peeters,
                           (2002/C 323/54)
                                                                            lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for
                                                                            annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 January 2001
                     (Language of the case: German)                         definitively classifying the applicant in grade C 5, step 3 — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Single Judge); B. Pastor, Deputy
                                                                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismissed the application;
In Case T-134/01, Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG, estab-                 2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
lished in Duisburg (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges,
L. Harings and C. Hütter, lawyers, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr): Application for                   (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.02.
an order that, primarily, the Commission or, alternatively, the
Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, pay a sum of
DEM 13 130,04 (EUR 6 713,28), plus interest at an annual
rate of 8 % from 1 March 2000, the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 30 September 2002
1.     Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
       EUR 6 713,28, together with default interest thereon from
       2 May 2000 until full payment. The rate of default interest to       in Case T-25/01: Francisco Miguel França v Commission
       be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European                          of the European Communities ( 1)
       Central Bank’s rate for its main refinancing operations, in force
       during the period concerned, plus two percentage points;             (Officials — Special leave for voting — Travelling time —
                                                                            Supporting evidence — Lack of jurisdiction — Duty of
                                                                            cooperation and fairness — Principle of proportionality —
2.     For the rest, dismisses the application;                                       Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (2002/C 323/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-25/01: Franciso Miguel Viana França, an official of
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by G. Gentil Anastácio, lawyer, against
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 323/35
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. de                       1.    Dismissed the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Avelar Santos and F-Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 March 2000                     2.    Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
refusing to allow the applicant travelling time in connection
with special leave for the purpose of voting — the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 September 2002, in
which it:
1.    Dismissed the action as manifestly unfounded;
2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.01.
                                                                            in Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Article 238 EC — Arbitration clause — Thermie pro-
                                                                            gramme — Unilateral termination of the contract by the
                                                                            Commission — Request that the case not proceed to judg-
                                                                                ment)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2002/C 323/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      of 27 September 2002
in Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of Auditors                    In Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA, established in Pisa (Italy),
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             represented by O. Fabe Dal Negro, lawyer, against Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbaek, R. Amo-
                                                                            rosi and M. Moretto) — application seeking, first, a declaration
(Officials — Appointment — Preliminary administrative                       that the termination notified by the Commission on 6 Septem-
  procedure — Procedural error — Manifest inadmissibility)                  ber 2001 of contract BM 1007/94 IT/DE/UK/PO, of 12 Decem-
                                                                            ber 1994 on the implementation of the project entitled ‘Energy
                                                                            Farm: an IGCC plant for the production of electricity and heat
                                                                            through gasification of SRF biomass (Phase 1)’ is null and
                         (2002/C 323/57)                                    unlawful and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to
                                                                            make good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                            result of the Commission’s conduct — the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
                                                                            K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                            order on 10 September 2002, the operative part of which is
                                                                            as follows:
In Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro, residing in Messina,                  1.    The request that the case not proceed to judgment is rejected.
Italy, represented by G. Monforte, lawyer, against Court of
Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier,                2.    Costs are reserved.
P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application for annulment of the
Court of Auditors’ decision of 22 February 2001 appointing
the Secretary-General of that institution — the Court of First              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 31.
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 27 September 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-399/12: Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/9

         Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-399/12)
   2012/C 343/11
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (represented by: N. Graf Vitzthum and T. Henze, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Council decision of 18 June 2012; (1)

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) challenges the Council decision of 18 June 2012‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’.
   According to the Federal Government, Article 218(9) TFEU was the incorrect legal basis for the adoption of the decision. Article 218(9) TFEU concerns in the first instance only the adoption of the positions of the Union in bodies, set up by international agreements, of which the Union is a member. Article 218(9) TFEU cannot however be applied in relation to the representation of the Member States in bodies of international organisations in which only the Member States participate by virtue of separate international treaties. Second, Article 218(9) TFEU covers only ‘acts having legal effects’, meaning acts binding under international law. OIV resolutions are however not acts in that sense.
   Moreover no other legal basis for the adoption of the Council decision is apparent.

      (1)  Council Document No 11436 ‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’.


title: Case C-175/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen, Hasselt Division, by order of that court of 4 May 2000 in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen against Rĳksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening

text:
C 233/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12.8.2000
—     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.             Handelsgericht (Regional Court, sitting as Commercial Court),
                                                                         Wels, Austria, of 9 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          company register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft
                                                                         mbH, Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg
On the basis of Articles 10 and 249 EC and of Article 2 of               Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and Günther
Directive 97/36/EC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   Gruber on the following questions:
required by no later than 30 December 1998 to bring into
force the laws, regulations and administrative measures neces-
sary in order to comply with the directive.                              1.   Do the measures provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of First
                                                                              Directive 68/151/EEC (1) and Article 47 of Fourth Directi-
                                                                              ve 78/660/EEC (2) regarding the disclosure obligation on
(1) OJ 1998 L 6, p. 43.                                                       capital companies infringe Article 44(2)(g) EC, which
(2) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                     confers power to coordinate the safeguards which, for
                                                                              the protection of the interests of members and creditors,
                                                                              are required by Member States of companies?
                                                                         2.   Do the measures provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of First
                                                                              Directive 68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Fourth Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te                       78/660/EEC regarding the disclosure obligation on capital
Antwerpen, Hasselt Division, by order of that court of                        companies infringe Article 44(2)(g) EC, in that they are
4 May 2000 in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen against                       not necessary to eliminate restrictions on establishment
            Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening                               or to attain other objectives of the EEC Treaty (in
                                                                              particular the establishment of uniform general legal
                          (Case C-175/00)                                     requirements)?
                         (2000/C 233/25)                                 3.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
                                                                              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
European Communities by order of the Arbeidshof te Antwer-                    secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
pen (Labour Court Antwerp), Hasselt Division, of 4 May 2000,                  sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a                          year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
preliminary ruling in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen                       provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening on the following                  intrusive — measures, compatible with the general legal
question:                                                                     principle of proportionality?
Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, according              4.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
to which that regulation applies to branches of social security,              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
be interpreted as meaning that a scheme such as the RWW                       78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
scheme, which has characteristics both of social security and                 secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
of social assistance, falls within the scope of that regulation, so           sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
that the period during which an employed person receives                      year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
benefits under this scheme can qualify as an insurance period                 provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
which is to be taken into account when assessing whether that                 intrusive — measures, compatible with the fundamental
person can have entitlement to unemployment benefits in                       right to property in Community law?
Belgium?
                                                                         5.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
                                                                              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
                                                                              78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
                                                                              secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
                                                                              sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht                     year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
Wels by order of that court of 9 May 2000 in the company                      provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft mbH,                        intrusive — measures, compatible with the fundamental
Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg                       right of freedom to pursue an economic activity in
Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and                          Community law?
                         Günther Gruber
                          (Case C-182/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 233/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landes- als


title: Case F-97/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Buendía Sierra v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2004 Promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Temporal application of provisions of the new Staff Regulations)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Buendía Sierra v Commission
   (Case F-97/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2004 Promotion procedure - Award of priority points - Temporal application of provisions of the new Staff Regulations)
   (2008/C 116/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Buendía Sierra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, assisted by D. Slater, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decisions awarding priority points to the applicant in the 2004 Promotion procedure and, secondly, annulment of the merit list of officials in Grade A*11 promoted to Grade A*12 in the 2004 Promotion procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision fixing Mr Buendía Sierra's total number of points at the end of the 2004 Promotion procedure and the decision not to promote him in that procedure;

               2.

               dismisses the remainder of the claims in the action;

               3.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 24 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under No T-380/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).


C 171/42              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
that Sogecable would offer its shareholders the option of                       Removal from the register of Case T-253/01 (1)
participating in a subordinated loan of EUR 175 million, to be
underwritten in its entirety by Telefónica. Finally, the parties                                 (2003/C 171/70)
agreed that neither of their debts should exceed, prior to the
concentration, EUR 425 million and 705 million respectively,                               (Language of the case: English)
with a maximum limit of EUR 1 130 million.
                                                                        By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, the applicants allege that the              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-253/01: UPS
contested decisions contain manifest errors of assessment of            Europe NV/SA v Commission of the European Communities.
the facts complained of. They also take the view that the
Commission has been negligent inasmuch as it did not fully              (1 ) OJ C 31 of 02.02.2002.
analyse the facts. Moreover, the defendant’s assessment also
infringes the principle of equality in that it diverges from
previous decisions in which it was held that it was necessary
to submit a new notification.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-24/03 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/71)
Finally, the applicant companies allege that the Commission
misused its powers.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber
( 1) Case T-346/02 Cableuropa and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40) and      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     Case T-347/02 Aunacable and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40).          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-24/03:
                                                                        Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case F-39/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Goddijn v European Police Office (Europol) (Public service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract for an indefinite period — Article 6 of Europol Staff Regulations — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/70

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Goddijn v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-39/09) (1)

      (Public service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract for an indefinite period - Article 6 of Europol Staff Regulations - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/131)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Jacqueline Goddijn (Breda, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer and subsequently by W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents and B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 dismissing the complaint against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to award a contract for an indefinite period to Ms Goddijn;

                  2.

                  Orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.09, p. 27.


title: Case C-529/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by Gert Folk (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environmental liability — Directive 2004/35/EC — Article 17 — Temporal scope of application — Operation of a hydroelectric power plant put into operation before the period for transposing that directive had expired — Article 2(1)(b) — Concept of ‘environmental damage’ — National law excluding all damage covered by an authorisation — Article 12(1) — Access to justice in environmental matters — Locus standi — Directive 2000/60/EC — Article 4(7) — Direct effect)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by Gert Folk
   (Case C-529/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environmental liability - Directive 2004/35/EC - Article 17 - Temporal scope of application - Operation of a hydroelectric power plant put into operation before the period for transposing that directive had expired - Article 2(1)(b) - Concept of ‘environmental damage’ - National law excluding all damage covered by an authorisation - Article 12(1) - Access to justice in environmental matters - Locus standi - Directive 2000/60/EC - Article 4(7) - Direct effect))
   (2017/C 249/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Gert Folk

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17 of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to investigations which are for the national court, that directive applies ratione temporis to the environmental damage that occurred after 30 April 2007 but which was caused by the operation of a facility authorised in accordance with the law governing matters relating to water and put into operation before that date;

               2.

               Directive 2004/35, as amended by Directive 2009/31, and in particular Article 2(1)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which excludes, generally and automatically, that damage which has a significant adverse effect on the ecological, chemical or quantitative status or ecological potential of the;

               3.

               In the event that an authorisation has been granted pursuant to national provisions without an examination whether the conditions laid down in Article 4(7)(a) to (d) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy have been complied with, a national court is not required to itself verify whether the conditions laid down in that article are satisfied in order to determine whether environmental damage within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2004/35, as amended by Directive 2009/31, has arisen;

               4.

               Article 12 and 13 of Directive 2004/35, as amended by Directive 2009/31, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which does not entitle persons holding fishing rights to initiate a review procedure in relation to environmental damage within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 1999 in Case C-73/97 P: French Republic v. Comafrica SpA and Others (Appeal - Banana sector - Annulment of Regulation (EC) No 3190/93 - Plea of inadmissibility)

text:
10.4.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                      11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 Comafrica and
                     (Sixth Chamber)                                  Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v. Commission.
                    of 21 January 1999
in Case C-73/97 P: French Republic v. Comafrica SpA and           2. Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by
                         Others (1)                                   Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd &
                                                                      Co. as inadmissible.
(Appeal Ð Banana sector Ð Annulment of Regulation
        (EC) No 3190/93 Ð Plea of inadmissibility)
                                                                  3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                     (1999/C 100/01)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-73/97 P, French Republic (Agents: Catherine de
Salins, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of
11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 Comafrica and Dole                                      (Fifth Chamber)
Fresh Fruit Europe v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1741,
seeking to have that judgment partially set aside in so far                            of 21 January 1999
as it rejected the plea of inadmissibility raised by the          in Case C-120/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Commission, the other parties to the proceeding being             the Court of Appeal): Upjohn Ltd v. The Licensing
Comafrica SpA, a company governed by Italian law,                 Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 and
established in Genoa (Italy), Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd                                    Others (1)
& Co., a company governed by German law, established
in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Bernard                      (Proprietary medicinal products Ð Revocation of a
O'Connor, Solicitor, with an address for service in                       marketing authorisation Ð Judicial review)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22
                                                                                (1999/C 100/02)
Rue Marie-Adelaïde, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Ð the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn                             (Language of the case: English)
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate-General: R. Grass, Registrar, has             In Case C-120/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
given a judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:                 of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England and


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2000 in Case C-383/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Polo/Lauren Company LP v PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight Forwarders (Common commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 — Prohibition of the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods — Whether applicable to goods in external transit — Validity)

text:
8.7.2000                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 192/3
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the period prescribed all           1. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of
     the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to              22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release
     comply with Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive                       for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive
     92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural                     procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods is to be interpreted as
     habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the French Republic has               being applicable where goods of the type specified in Regulation
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                      No 3295/94, imported from a non-member country, are, in the
                                                                                course of their transit to another non-member country, tempor-
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        arily detained in a Member State by the customs authorities of
                                                                                that State on the basis of that regulation and at the request of
3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                             the company which holds rights in respect of those goods which
                                                                                it claims have been infringed and whose registered office is in a
                                                                                non-member country.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             2. Consideration of the questions raised has revealed no factor of
                                                                                such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 3295/94.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              of 6 April 2000                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
in Case C-383/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Polo/Lauren Company LP                        in Case C-176/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
v PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight                          the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Jyri
                               Forwarders (1)                                Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v
                                                                             Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basket-ball ASBL
(Common commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 3295/94                                                     (FRBSB) (1)
— Prohibition of the release for free circulation, export, re-
export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and                (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules
pirated goods — Whether applicable to goods in external                      applicable to undertakings — Professional basketball players
                            transit — Validity)                              — Sporting rules on the transfer of players from other
                                                                                Member States)
                             (2000/C 192/05)                                                            (2000/C 192/06)
                      (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-176/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-383/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster                         Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                     court between Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-
Polo/Lauren Company LP and PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama                       Braine ASBL and Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de
International Freight Forwarders — on the interpretation of                  Basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB), intervener: Ligue Belge — Belgische
Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994                       Liga ASBL — on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 of the EC
laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circu-                 Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 39 EC), 85
lation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of             and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC)
counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8) — the                    — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the              President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                       Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-                 Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in
6 April 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         which it has ruled:


title: Case C-154/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG v European Commission, Gigaset AG (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Articles 12 and 14 — Right to be heard — In camera hearing)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG v European Commission, Gigaset AG
   (Case C-154/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Articles 12 and 14 - Right to be heard - In camera hearing))
   (2016/C 305/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG (represented by: A. Birnstiel and S. Janka, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Gigaset AG, formerly Arques Industries AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG to pay the costs of the European Commission and to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-565/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Lawyers — Obligation to comply with maximum fee tariffs — Obstacle to market access — No obstacle)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-565/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Lawyers - Obligation to comply with maximum fee tariffs - Obstacle to market access - No obstacle)
   2011/C 152/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and L. Prete, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented: I. Bruni, G. Calmieri and W. Ferrante, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Lawyers — Obligation to comply with compulsory fee ceilings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-56/05: Action brought on 8 February 2005 by Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/28

         Action brought on 8 February 2005 by Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-56/05)
   (2005/C 106/61)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 February 2005 by Ireland represented by D.J. -O'Hagan, agent, assisted by P. Gallagher and P. McGarry, Barristers, and with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul (in whole or in part) Commission Decision C (2004) 4447 of 29 November 2004 reducing the assistance from the cohesion fund to project 96/07/61/007 (Dublin Region Water Supply Scheme — Stage 3), granted by the Commission Decision C(97) 4090 of 15 December 1997 and reducing the assistance from the cohesion fund to Project No. 95/07/65/007, (N1 Dunleer — Dundalk Road Stage 2) granted by the Commission Decision C (96) 2113 of 29 July 1996 in respect of such period or amounts as the Court should determine;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By virtue of Commission Decision C(97) 4090 of 15 December 1997, assistance was granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project 96/07/61/007 (Dublin Region Water Supply Scheme — Stage III) in Ireland. By Commission Decision C (96) 2113 of 29 July 1996 assistance was granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project No. 95/07/65/007, (N1 Dunleer — Dundalk Road Stage II), also in Ireland. By the contested decision the Commission reduced the amounts of total assistance granted under the two previous decisions, invoking various irregularities found during the examination of the projects concerned. The Commission also decided that a total amount of EUR 797 886 had been unduly received and should be recovered by reimbursement.
   In support of its application to annul the contested decision the applicant submits first of all that the contested decision is invalid, having been adopted more than three months after the date of the oral hearing, in violation of Article 18(3) Regulation 1386/2002 (1) and Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation 1164/94 (2). According to the applicant this constitutes a breach of an essential procedural requirement as well as an infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
   The applicant also argues that the Commission committed a further breach of the principle of legal certainty by retrospectively applying new guidelines of eligibility of expenditure in such a way as to change its interpretation of who constituted the ‘final beneficiary’ and thus render expenses ineligible as having been made outside the relevant period. According to the applicant this also violated its legitimate expectations.
   A further breach of the principle of legal certainty was, in the applicant's view, the retrospective application of flat rate financial correction. This concept was, the applicant claims, first developed and enunciated in guidelines adopted by the Commission in 2002.
   The applicant finally submits that the retrospective application of the Commission's new approach to the practice of substitution of eligible for ineligible expenditure constitutes a further breach of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicant it was only in the 2002 Guidelines that the Commission decided that such substitution was no longer permissible. However, the applicant argues, this approach could not be applied to projects dating from 1996 and 1997.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 of 29 July 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund and the procedure for making financial corrections, OJ L 201 p. 5.

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


title: Case T-184/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2009 — Alves dos Santos v Commission (European Social Fund — Training programmes — Reduction in the financial assistance initially granted — Application — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2009 — Alves dos Santos v Commission
   (Case T-184/08) (1)

   (European Social Fund - Training programmes - Reduction in the financial assistance initially granted - Application - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2009/C 141/85
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos (Alvaiázere, Portugal) (represented by: A. Marques Fernandes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and B. Kotschy, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2004, notified to Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos on 3 March 2008, reducing the amount of financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) in respect of a vocational training programme submitted by the Portuguese authorities in file No 89 0488 P1

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-123/04: Action brought on 31 March 2004 by Cargo Partner AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/6

         Action brought on 31 March 2004 by Cargo Partner AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-123/04)
   (2004/C 168/10)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 March 2004 by Cargo Partner AG, Fischamend (Austria), represented by M. Wolner, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the contested decision so as to allow registration of the trade mark sought;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); and,

               —

               in any event, award costs to the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark CARGO PARTNER — Application No 2697290.

               Goods or services:

               Goods and services in Classes 36 (insurance) and 39 (transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement).

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               The examiner's partial refusal to register the mark in respect of the transport, packaging and storage services in Class 39.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               The mark is distinctive and therefore registrable.


title: Case C-203/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners by order of that court of 3 May 2005 in Vodafone 2 v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners by order of that court of 3 May 2005 in Vodafone 2 v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-203/05)
   (2005/C 182/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by direction of the the Special Commissioners of 3 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 9 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Vodafone 2 and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 43, 49 and/or 56 of the EC Treaty preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides in specified circumstances for the imposition of a charge to tax upon a company resident in that Member State (‘the Resident Company’) in respect of the profits of a company controlled by it (‘the Controlled Company’) which is resident in another Member State and subject to a lower level of taxation, and in particular:

                           1.1

                           imposes such a charge unless the Resigent Company is able to establish that an exemption from that legislation applies to the Controlled Company;

                           1.2

                           provides for exemptions from the imposition of such a charge but in terms which give scope for uncertainty as to the availability in practice of an exemption upon the establishment of the Controlled Company or thereafter;

                           1.3

                           imposes certain compliance requirements, where the Resident Company does not seek or is not able to claim any such exemption and pays tax in respect of the profits of that Controlled Company;

                           1.4

                           imposes compliance requirements where the Resident Company seeks to obtain exemption from that charge to tax which may include the obligation to review and consider the application of the legislation in respect of all of its Controlled Companies and thereafter in each year to monitor the activities of each of its Controlled Companies to ensure qualification for exemption continues;

                           1.5

                           imposes in all cases administrative and cost burdens (which may be considerable) on the Resident Company,

                     and in each case, the consequences referred to do not apply in respect of any company established in the Member State in which the Resident Company is established?

               2.

               Would the answer to the Question put at 1 be different if:

                           2.1

                           the Controlled Company carried out only minimal activities in the Member State in which it is resident; or

                           2.2

                           only a minimal part of the profits of the Controlled Company are subject to tax in the Member State in which it is resident; or

                           2.3

                           the Controlled Company was established as part of an artificial scheme to avoid tax, and, if so, what are the indicia of such an artificial scheme?

               3.

               Are there circumstances in which:

                           3.1

                           the Resident Company may not rely on rights derived from Article 43 and/or Article 56 EC; or

                           3.2

                           no rights derived from Article 43 and/or Article 56 EC accrue to the Resident Company;

                     on the ground that such reliance or the accrual of such rights would be an abuse of those rights? If there are such circumstances, what guidance does the Court of Justice consider it appropriate to give as to how the Special Commissioners should determine, in the factual context of this case, whether there are such circumstances or whether there is such an abuse?

               4.

               Do Articles 56 and 58(1 )(a) of the EC Treaty and Declaration No. 7 of the Maastricht Treaty preclude national tax legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings where one or more exemptions to the application of that legislation would be available but for an amendment to such legislation having effect after 1 January 1994?

               5.

               Do Articles 43, 49 and/or 56 of the EC Treaty preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings where that legislation would not apply if the Resident Company capitalised the Controlled Company with debt rather than equity?

               6.

               Do Articles 43, 49 and/or 56 of the EC Treaty preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings where one or more exemptions to the application of that legislation would be available if the Controlled Company's income in the other Member State either:

                           6.1

                           comprised income from sources within that Member State and not from another Member State or other jurisdictions; or

                           6.2

                           comprised dividend income instead of interest income from the same company?


title: Case C-317/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lahti Energia Oy (Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Purification and combustion — Crude gas produced from waste — Definition of waste — Incineration plant — Co-incineration plant)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lahti Energia Oy
   (Case C-317/07) (1)

   (Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Purification and combustion - Crude gas produced from waste - Definition of waste - Incineration plant - Co-incineration plant)
   (2009/C 19/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties in the main proceedings
   Lahti Energia Oy
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 3(1), (4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91) — Purification and combustion in a boiler of a power plant — Concept of waste — Concepts of incineration plant and co-incineration plant
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The definition of ‘waste’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste does not cover gaseous substances;

               2)

               The definition of ‘incineration plant’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/76 relates to any technical unit and equipment in which waste is thermally treated, on condition that the substances resulting from the use of the thermal treatment process are subsequently incinerated and that, in that connection, the presence of an incineration line is not a necessary condition for the purposes of such classification;

               3)

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings:

                           —

                           a gas plant whose objective is to obtain products in gaseous form, in this case purified gas, by thermally treating waste must be classified as a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/76;

                           —

                           a power plant which uses as an additional fuel, in substitution for fossil fuels used for the most part in its production activities, a purified gas obtained by the co-incineration of waste in a gas plant does not fall within the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2001 in Case C-99/98: Republic of Austria v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Plan to grant State aid in the field of power semiconductors — Notification of the Commission — Content of the notification and of supplementary questions put by the Commission — Nature and duration of the investigation — Commission's right of objection — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC))

text:
16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 15 February 2001                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 February 2001
in Case C-99/98: Republic of Austria v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case C-230/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(Action for annulment — Plan to grant State aid in the field
of power semiconductors — Notification of the Commission
— Content of the notification and of supplementary ques-                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
tions put by the Commission — Nature and duration of                       Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
the investigation — Commission’s right of objection —                      amendment, Article 28 EC) — National legislation concern-
    Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC))                 ing rubber materials and rubber articles entering into contact
                                                                           with foodstuffs, food products and beverages — Mutual
                                                                           recognition — No proper letter of formal notice — Action
                          (2001/C 173/10)                                                               inadmissible)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/11)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-99/98: Republic of Austria (Agent: W. Okresek) v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-                   In Case C-230/99: Commission of the European Communities
schitz and P.F. Nemitz) — application for annulment of                     (Agents: H. van Lier and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French Republic
Commission Decision SG(98) D/1124 of 9 February 1998 to                    (Agents: J.-F. Dobelle, R. Loosli-Surrans and K. Rispal-Bellang-
open a formal investigation procedure under Article 93(2) of               er) — application for a declaration that, by adopting the Order
the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) in respect of State aid               of 9 November 1994 concerning rubber materials and rubber
C 84/97 (ex N 509/96) in favour of Siemens Bauelemente                     articles entering into contact with foodstuffs, food products
OHG, established in Villach, Austria — the Court, composed                 and beverages (Journal Officiel de la République Française of
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as                  2 December 1994, p. 17029) without expressly providing for
President, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skoutis (Rappor-              recognition of technical rules, standards and manufacturing
teur), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and             processes lawfully followed in the other Member States and
R. Schintgen, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von                recognition of the results of the related checks and tests carried
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 Febru-              out by an inspectorate or a laboratory officially recognised in
ary 2001, in which it:                                                     another Member State, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                           its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
1.    Annuls Commission Decision SG(98) D/1124 of 9 February
                                                                           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
      1998 to open a formal investigation procedure under
                                                                           ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
      Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) in
                                                                           Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
      respect of State aid C 84/97 (ex N 509/96) in favour of
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 February 2001, in
      Siemens Bauelemente OHG;
                                                                           which it:
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay             1.     Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
      the costs.
                                                                           2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case C-39/00 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2000 by Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions (SGA) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2000 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96, brought by Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions (SGA) against Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 149/15
2. Order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                     — (In the alternative) The PTA 58 billion paid is justified even
                                                                              if it is accepted that it cannot be paid alongside general tax
                                                                              credits. Breach of the principle that no one may renege on
                                                                              his own decisions (legitimate expectations) and manifest
                                                                              error of assessment: The PTA 58 billion granted was not
                                                                              calculated by reference to the 28 % of forecast losses of the
                                                                              shipyards from 1995 to 1998, but rather, an overall
                                                                              amount to be paid as aid was negotiated and granted.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Improper procedure and breach of the principles of                     (1) of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring —
    legitimate expectations, legal certainty and sound adminis-              OJ 1997 L 148, 6. 6. 1997, p. 1
    tration: if the incorporation (in late 1997) of shipyards into
    SEPI resulted in an immediate and automatic reduction in
    the aid granted to compensate for the loss of tax credits
    (from 1 August 1995 when the shipyards became part of
    a State organisation which was not considered a group
    covered by the tax consolidation system) then the Com-
    mission’s departments should not have acted as they did:
    they should either have advised the Kingdom of Spain of
    their interpretation of the situation or commenced the
    procedure for the review of certain aid declared compatible
    (‘existing aid’) pursuant to Article 88(1) EC and the case-
    law of the Court of Justice.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 11 February 2000 by Service pour le
                                                                         Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA) against the judgment
                                                                         delivered on 13 December 2000 by the First Chamber of
— (In the alternative) Failure to state any reasons relating to          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    the effects of the aid declared incompatible.                        in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96, brought
                                                                         by Service pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA)
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
— Breach of Article 92(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now
    Article 87(1) and (3) EC), of Council Regulation                                               (Case C-39/00 P)
    No 1013/97 (1) and of the principle of legitimate expec-
    tations:
                                                                                (2000/C 149/25)
    1. The PTA 58 billion in aid granted cannot be considered            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
         in isolation, purely and simply as compensation for             2000 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
         the tax credits which the shipyards had to lose, but            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96
         must be viewed as the outcome of overall negotiations.          and T-123/96, brought by Service pour le Groupement
         In failing to do so the Commission has breached                 d’Acquisitions (SGA) against Commission of the European
         Council Regulation 1013/97 and the principle of                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
         legitimate expectations arising from its Decision defini-       European Communities on 11 February 2000 by Service pour
         tively authorising aid of a specific amount.                    le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA), represented by SCP
                                                                         Fourgoux & Associates, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
                                                                         Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
    2. The Commission’s interpretation of the limit on aid
         granted as a maximum breaches Article 92(3) of the
         EC Treaty and the principles of legal certainty and             The appellant claims that the Court should:
         legitimate expectations as it undermines the definitive
         nature of the Decision granting aid.
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                              13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96
                                                                              and T-123/96;
    3. The Commission includes in the aid granted amounts
         paid under a general scheme which do not constitute
         aid. This breaches Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.              — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — The Court was wrong to dismiss the claim for damages
                                                                            solely on the ground that the Commission’s conduct could
                                                                            not constitute a wrongful act entailing the liability of
                                                                            the Community because the claims for annulment were
                                                                            dismissed and because the Commission is not obliged by
— Breach of essential procedural requirements and funda-                    Article 3 of Regulation No 17 to take a decision as to
    mental rights: the requirements of the right to a fair                  whether the alleged infringement took place or not. That
    hearing, respect for the rights of the defence and the need             argument is, moreover, unrelated to the dismissal of the
    to observe the audi alteram partem rule, preclude the                   application for interim measures, which of course does not
    prohibition of the production, after the hearing and before             require a decision first to be taken as to whether the alleged
    the judgment, of a document furnished voluntarily by a                  infringement took place as a finding that it is based on
    party for the debate and discussed before the Court. There              ‘substantial’‘well-documented’ evidence, as in the present
    can be no fair hearing if the court fails to consider a                 case, is sufficient, as acknowledged by the Commission
    document provided freely for the purposes of the debate                 whose opinion is corroborated by the document put
    by a party (a fortiori where the party is one of the                    forward ‘in error’ and then withdrawn with the authoris-
    institutions), on the pretext that that document, on reflec-            ation of the Court.
    tion, would be embarrassing for the party producing it.
    The plea alleging that the time taken to deal with the
    complaint and conclude the proceedings was unreasonable
    must (not may) be raised by the Court of its own motion,
    contrary to what the Court of First Instance suggests, as it
    is always what is considered to be a breach of a fundamen-
    tal right whether with regard to the administrative or the
    judicial procedure. In the present case, a period of two
    years must be considered unreasonable for the preliminary
    examination as it far exceeds the period of reflection              Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission
    necessary and a period of five and a half years is equally          of the European Communities against the French Republic
    unreasonable for the proceedings.
                                                                                (Case C-40/00)
— Manifest error regarding the probative force of the evidence                                  (2000/C 149/26)
    produced by the complainant.
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
— Manifest error in the assessment that there is insufficient           2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    Community interest and that there is a discretion to refrain        represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Christophe
    from ordering the cessation of serious infringements on             Giolito, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    the pretext of establishing priorities: the Court made an           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    error of assessment of fact and law in taking the view              Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    that the Commission was entitled not to pursue the
    infringements committed by PSA and to choose to deal
    instead with the Volkswagen file. As regards the centre of          The applicant claims that the Court should:
    gravity for the infringement, it cannot be limited to France,
    given that pressure is put on foreign dealers in other
    Member States and that the infringement is committed
    primarily at that level, thus outside France, so that,              — declare that by reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total
    because of the cross-border nature of the infringement the              prohibition on the right to deduct VAT on gas oil used as
    Commission was best-placed to deal with the file and make               fuel for vehicles on the purchase of which no VAT is
    the investigations pursuant inter alia to Article 5 of the EC           deductible after having introduced a partial right to deduct
    Treaty.                                                                 several times the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council
                                                                            Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmon-
                                                                            ization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
— Manifest error as regards interim measures: if the Court                  uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1);
    upholds the above pleas it cannot but uphold the plea
    alleging that there was an error in refusing to order interim
    measures.                                                           — order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-310/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/40

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission
   (Case T-310/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/58)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-557/07: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Information society — Copyright and related right — Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data — Protecting the confidentiality of electronic communication — Intermediaries within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/14

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH
   (Case C-557/07) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Information society - Copyright and related right - Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data - Protecting the confidentiality of electronic communication - ‘Intermediaries’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC)
   2009/C 113/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)

      Parties

      Applicant: LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH

      Defendant: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a) and 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), of Article 8(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) and of Articles 6 and 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) — Classification as ‘intermediary’ of an internet services provider — National legislation imposing an obligation on intermediaries to supply information to individuals who are victims of an infringement of copyright for the purposes of civil proceedings — Communication to a copyright protection company of the names and addresses of the users participating in file-sharing systems.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Community law, in particular Article 8(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), does not preclude Member States from laying down an obligation to disclose to private third parties personal data relating to Internet traffic to enable them to initiate civil proceedings for copyright infringements. However, Community law requires that Member States, when transposing Directives 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2002/58 and 2004/48, ensure that they rely on an interpretation of those directives which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               An access provider, who merely provides a user with Internet access without offering other services such as inter alia email, FTP or file sharing services or exercising any control, either in law or in fact, over the services which the user makes use of, must be considered ‘intermediaries’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-158/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 April 2014  — A and Others; other party: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 April 2014 — A and Others; other party: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-158/14)
   2014/C 194/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: A, B, C, D

      Other party: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to, inter alia, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) would an action for the annulment of Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, (2) in so far as that regulation included the LTTE on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, (3) brought before the General Court by the appellants in the present proceedings in their own name on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, undoubtedly have been admissible?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Having regard to, inter alia, recital 11 in the preamble to Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, (4) can actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, within the meaning of international humanitarian law, be terrorist offences within the meaning of that Framework Decision?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative, can actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, within the meaning of international humanitarian law, be terrorist acts within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (5) and of Regulation No 2580/2001?

               3

               Are the actions which formed the basis of Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, in so far as it included the LTTE on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict within the meaning of international humanitarian law?

               4.

               Having regard to, inter alia, the answers to Questions 1, 2(a), 2(b) and 3, is Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, in so far as the LTTE was thereby included on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, invalid?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does that invalidity then also apply to the earlier and later Council decisions updating the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, in so far as those decisions resulted in the inclusion of the LTTE on that list?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).

      (4)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (OJ 2002 L 164, p. 3).

      (5)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: Case C-394/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — John Dalli v European Commission (Appeal — OLAF investigation report concerning a Member of the European Commission — Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to terminate the term of office of the Commissioner concerned — Action for annulment and compensation)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — John Dalli v European Commission
   (Case C-394/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - OLAF investigation report concerning a Member of the European Commission - Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to terminate the term of office of the Commissioner concerned - Action for annulment and compensation))
   (2016/C 279/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr John Dalli is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-417/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/384/EEC — Recognition of architects' diplomas — Registration procedure with the Greek Technical Board (Technico Epimelitirio Elladas) — Obligation to provide a document stating that the evidence of formal qualifications concerned is covered by the system of mutual recognition)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-417/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/384/EEC - Recognition of architects' diplomas - Registration procedure with the Greek Technical Board (Technico Epimelitirio Elladas) - Obligation to provide a document stating that the evidence of formal qualifications concerned is covered by the system of mutual recognition)
   (2004/C 262/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-417/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and retaining in force the provisions of Article 3(1)(c) of Presidential Decree No 107/1993 of 22 March 1993, and by accepting that the Technico Epimelitirio Elladas (Greek Technical Board), with which a person must be registered in order to pursue the profession of architect in Greece, carries out, with significant delays, the processing of the files and the registration of Community nationals holding foreign diplomas which ought to be recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-187/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Articles 203 and 204 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 859 — External transit procedure — Incurrence of a customs debt — Removal or not from customs supervision — Failure to perform an obligation — Late submission of the goods at the office of destination — Goods refused by the consignee and returned without having been submitted to the customs office — Goods again placed under the external transit procedure via a fresh declaration — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(e) — Deduction of VAT on import by the carrier)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
   (Case C-187/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 203 and 204 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 859 - External transit procedure - Incurrence of a customs debt - Removal or not from customs supervision - Failure to perform an obligation - Late submission of the goods at the office of destination - Goods refused by the consignee and returned without having been submitted to the customs office - Goods again placed under the external transit procedure via a fresh declaration - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(e) - Deduction of VAT on import by the carrier))
   (2015/C 279/16)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: DSV Road A/S

      Intervening party: Danske Speditører

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is not incurred on the basis of the sole fact that the goods placed under an External Community transit procedure are, after an unsuccessful delivery attempt, brought back to the free port of departure without having been presented to either the customs office of destination or the customs of the free port if it is established that the same goods were subsequently transported again to their destination under a second correctly discharged External Community transit procedure. However, if it is not possible to establish that the goods covered by the first and second External Community transit procedures are the same goods, a customs debt is incurred under that provision;

               2.

               Article 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, read in conjunction with Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the late presentation at the customs office of destination under a second External Community transit procedure of goods placed under a first External Community transit procedure constitutes an omission which leads to a customs debt being incurred, unless the conditions laid down in Article 356(3) or the second indent of Article 859 and point 2(c) thereof of that regulation are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

               3.

               Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the deduction of VAT on import which the carrier, who is neither the importer nor the owner of the goods in question and has merely carried out the transport and customs formalities as part of its activity as a transporter of freight subject to VAT, is required to pay.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.