title: Joined Cases C-585/14, C-587/14 and C-588/14: Order of the Court (9th Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania)) — Petru Chiş (C-585/14), Aurel Moldovan (C-587/14) v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Sergiu Octav Constantinescu (C-588/14) v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal Taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership — Fiscal neutrality as between second hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/8

         Order of the Court (9th Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania)) — Petru Chiş (C-585/14), Aurel Moldovan (C-587/14) v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Sergiu Octav Constantinescu (C-588/14) v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj
   (Joined Cases C-585/14, C-587/14 and C-588/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal Taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership - Fiscal neutrality as between second hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market))
   (2015/C 398/10)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Petru Chiş (C-585/14), Aurel Moldovan (C-587/14), Sergiu Octav Constantinescu (C-588/14)

      Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (C-585/14, C-587/14), Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj (C-588/14)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from introducing a tax on motor vehicles, such as that laid down in Law No 9/2012 of 6 January 2012, in relation to the tax on pollutant emissions from motor vehicles (Legea nr. 9/2012 privind taxa pentru emisiile poluante provenite de la autovehicule), which is levied on imported second hand vehicles at the time they are first registered in that Member State and on vehicles that are already registered in that Member State, at the time of the first transfer, within that Member State, of ownership.

               2.

               Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from exempting from a tax, such as that laid down in Law No 9/2012, vehicles that are already registered, in respect of which a tax previously in force has been paid, when the residual amount of that tax, included in the value of those vehicles, is less than the amount of the new tax. That is necessarily the case when the earlier tax must be reimbursed with interest because of its incompatibility with EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case T-224/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CW v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Extension — Right to property — Proportionality — Error of fact — Misuse of powers — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CW v Council
   (Case T-224/14) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Extension - Right to property - Proportionality - Error of fact - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 305/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CW (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014, amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 38), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CW to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-413/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SOZA v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/56

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SOZA v Commission
   (Case T-413/08)
   (2008/C 301/93)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA) (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) and in particular, of its Article 3, determining that the EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society.
   In support of its claims the applicant submits that:

               (i)

               the inclusion of territorial delineations in its reciprocal representation agreements is not the result of a concerted practice, and

               (ii)

               in the alternative, if there were a concerted practice on territorial delineations, it would not be restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

         On the basis of its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission made an error of assessment and infringed Article 81 EC as well as Article 253 EC by determining that the parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal representation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other EEA CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice, whereas the decision failed to provide any evidence of such a concerted practice.
   On the basis of its second plea, the applicant contends that the alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations is not illegal because it concerns a form of competition that is not worthy of protection. Moreover, the applicant claims that, even if the alleged practice should be considered to restrict competition, it does not infringe Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary and proportionate to a legitimate objective.

      (1)  International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.


title: Case C-143/12: Order of the President of the Court of 5 October 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 October 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-143/12) (1)

   2013/C 101/30
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case T-465/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries — Rejection of a submitted tender — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission
   (Case T-465/04) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries - Rejection of a submitted tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   (2008/C 272/28)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented: initially by K. Banks, and subsequently by M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 15 September 2004 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure relating to the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               The Commission's decision to reject the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and to award the contract to the successful tenderer in the tendering procedure ‘FISH/2004/02’ is annulled.

               2.

               The Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case F-53/12: Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ and Others v European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/22

         Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ and Others v European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case F-53/12)
   2012/C 200/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Partial annulment of the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee to promote the applicants from grade AST 5 to grade AST 6, in the part fixing the multiplication factor.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of 20 July 2011 of the Deputy Secretary General, General Affairs, Human Resources and Internal Affairs, in so far as the multiplication factor resulting from the applicants’ promotion to grade AST 6/1 with effect from 1 April 2011 established by those decisions is the one that had been fixed for them on 1 April 2009 and not the one fixed for them on 24 March 2011 with effect from 1 April 2011;

               —

               In the alternative, annul those decisions in so far as the multiplication factor resulting from the applicants’ promotion does not take account of their seniority in step acquired between 1 April 2009 and 1 April 2011;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decisions of 20 July 2011 in so far as they enter into effect as from 1 April 2011 and not on the date immediately following that on which the decisions of 24 March 2011 entered into effect;

               —

               Order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case T-188/04: Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Freixenet S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

         Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Freixenet S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-188/04)
   (2004/C 217/41)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by Freixenet S.A., established in Sant Sadurní d'Anoia (Spain), represented by Fernand de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 11 February 2004 and order that trade mark application No 32540 be published pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               in the alternative, the decision of 11 February 2004 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Freixenet S.A.

               Community trade mark applied for:

               Three-dimensional trade mark in the form of a frosted black matt bottle (No 32540)

               Products or services:

               Products in classification 33 (sparkling wines)

               Decision of the examination division:

               Application rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of the rights of the defence and Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (1) in so far as the applicant was not able to express a view on all of the facts, and infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-386/14: Action brought on 24 May 2014 — Fih Holding and Fih Erhversbank v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/50

         Action brought on 24 May 2014 — Fih Holding and Fih Erhversbank v Commission
   (Case T-386/14)
   2014/C 253/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Fih Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark); and Fih Erhversbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 11 March 2014 C(2014) 1280 final on State aid SA.34445 (2012/c) implemented by Danemark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission found ‘that no market economy operator would have been willing to invest on terms and conditions equivalent to those of the share purchase agreement’ (recital 93), that ‘as a result the measures are not in line with the MEOP’ (recital 93 and 99), and in Article 1(1) that the asset transfer constitute State aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the FSC should not be compared to a private investor guided by the longer-term prospects of profitability of the capital invested, but to a private creditor seeking to obtain payment of sums owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulties, due to the pre-existing liabilities resting upon the FSC.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it finds in recital 116 the gross capital relief effect of the measures to be DKK 375 million, which needed to be remunerated, and the transfer value to be DKK 254 million above the real economic value, which needed to be clawed back, and in the second paragraph of Article 1 and the Term Sheet, commitment 6, makes the approval contingent on this.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission found in recital 103 (a) ‘a benefit related to the share purchase agreement formula (DKK 0,73 billion)’, and in recital 103 (b) ‘a foregone equity investment remuneration (DKK 1,33 billion)’. Due to this there is no basis for the claim for remuneration of the capital relief demanded by the Commission in the second paragraph of Article 1and commitment No 6.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misunderstood the terms of the Agreement when the Commission concluded that FIH should repay DKK 254 million to the FSC (recital 116) as the difference between the Transfer Value and the Real Economic Value of the assets.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter as the Commission has failed to observe its essential procedural duty to state reasons for its decision.


title: Case T-540/13: Action brought on 1 October 2013 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/10

         Action brought on 1 October 2013 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA
   (Case T-540/13)
   2014/C 31/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société européenne des chaux et liants (Bourgoin-Jallieu, France) (represented by: J. Dezarnaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Uphold the applicant’s request to be fully relieved of the fine of which it has been notified.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant requests that it be relieved of the administrative charge imposed by Decision SME (2013) 1665 of the ECHA which found that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions for eligibility for the reduced fee envisaged for small-sized enterprises, in the light of its corrective declaration submitted after the initiation by the ECHA of the verification procedure relating to the size of the undertaking.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on a certain number of pleas in law:

               —

               the fact that the sanction adopted is disproportionate to the error which can be imputed to it;

               —

               the fact that it corrected its declaration when first requested by the ECHA;

               —

               the fact that it can be excused for misinterpreting an extremely technical document drafted in a language other than its own;

               —

               the illogical nature of an automatic sanction.


title: Case T-599/13: Action brought on 11 November 2013 — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/22

         Action brought on 11 November 2013 — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD)
   (Case T-599/13)
   2014/C 39/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 September 2013 in Case R 2013/2012-4;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark which includes the picture of a tiger and the word element ‘GELENKGOLD’, for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9957978

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Haw Par Corp. Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative marks which include the picture of a tiger, for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


title: Case T-84/04: Actionbrought on 20 February 2004 by Axiom Medical,Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/77

         Action brought on 20 February 2004 by Axiom Medical, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-84/04)
   (2004/C 106/151)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 February 2004 by Axiom Medical, Inc., Rancho Dominguez (USA), represented by R. Köbbing, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 193/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of 17 December 2003;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Decision R 193/2002-1 in respect of the goods in Class 10;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘ATRAUM’ for goods in Class 5 (wound dressings) and Class 10 (medical devices etc.) – Application No 11405588

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Paul Hartmann Akteingesellschaft

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               National and international mark ‘Atrauman’ for goods in Class 5

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2002 in Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 144/44               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
     —     ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,            sets imported from Turkey — the Court of First Instance
           namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing         (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
           including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for       K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
           services and guarantees’ within Class 36;                       order on 21 March 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
     —     ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;
                                                                           1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
     —     ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
           phones, speech recording services, information services;
           telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech          2.    The Commission is to pay all the costs.
           recording services, information services’ within Class 38;
     —     ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking       (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
           and payment processing programming; providing of food
           and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
           accommodation’ within Class 42;
2.   As to the remainder, dismisses the action;
3.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
     defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
     own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                of 4 March 2002
                                                                           in Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und
                                                                           Einzelhandel GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
                                                                                measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                        of 21 March 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 144/93)
in Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V. v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
         Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                         (2002/C 144/92)                                   In Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhan-
                                                                           del GmbH, established in Essen (Germany), represented by
                                                                           D. Ehle, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         supported by the Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), v
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot
                                                                           and M. Núñez Müller) — application for annulment of the
                                                                           Commission’s decision C (2000) 1685 final of 29 June 2000,
In Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V., established in Antwerp                     addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and relating to
(Belgium), represented by M. Famchon, lawyer, with an address              a remission of import duties — the Court of First Instance
for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Kingdom of the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and
Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster), v                  R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot                  made an order on 4 March 2002, the operative part of which
and J. Stuyck) — application for annulment of the Com-                     is as follows:
mission’s decision C(1999) 2286 final (REC 12/98) of 22 July
1999 declaring that post-clearance recovery should be effected
and refusing remission of import duties in respect of television           1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/45
2.    The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the    made an order on 26 October 2001, the operative part of
      applicant;                                                         which is as follows:
3.    The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.
                                                                         1.    Execution of the Commission Decision of 3 July 2001 relating
                                                                               to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/
                                                                               38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim measures) is
(1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.                                                        suspended until such time as the Court of First Instance has
                                                                               given judgment in the main action;
                                                                         2.    Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE
                        26 October 2001                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-184/01 R: IMS Health Inc. v Commission of the                                            of 21 March 2002
                     European Communities
                                                                         in Case T-235/01: Georgios Caravelis v European Parlia-
(Proceedings for interim relief — Competition law —                                                     ment (1)
Complaint — Alleged abuse of copyright — Commission
decision providing for protective measures — Conditions for
                                                                         (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
the grant of interim relief — Prima facie case — Urgency —
                                                                                measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                      Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/95)
                         (2002/C 144/94)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-235/01: Georgios Caravelis, an official of the
In Case T-184/01 R, IMS Health Inc., a company incorporated
                                                                         European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware,
                                                                         C. Tagaras, lawyer, v European Parliament (Agents: J. F. De
established at Fairfield, Connecticut (United States of America),
                                                                         Wachter, C. Karamarcos and N. Korogiannakis) — application
represented by N. Levy and J. Temple Lang, Solicitors, and
                                                                         for annulment of Vacancy Notice No 9186 relating to the
R. O’Donoghue, Barrister, v Commission of the European
                                                                         filling of the A 3 post of director of the Information Office in
Communities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier, A. Whelan and
                                                                         Athens — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), compo-
F. Siredney-Garnier) supported by AzyX Deutschland GmbH
                                                                         sed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
Geopharma Information Services, established at Neu-Isenburg
                                                                         P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 21 March
(Germany), represented by L. Levi, G. Vandersanden and
                                                                         2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
D. Dugois, lawyers, and NDC Health Corporation, a company
incorporated in accordance with the laws of the State of
Delaware, established at Atlanta, Georgia (United States of
America), represented by I. Forrester QC, F. Fine, Solicitor,            1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
C. Price and A. F. Gagliardi, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, and NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG, established                 2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
at Bad Camberg (Germany), represented by I. Forrester QC,
F. Fine, Solicitor, C. Price and A. F. Gagliardi, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg: Application for interim
measures in respect of the Commission Decision of 3 July                 (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC
(Case COMP D3/38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim
measures), the President of the Court of First Instance has


title: Case C-540/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(5) — Exemptions — Underwriting guarantee provided against payment of a commission by credit institutions to the issuing companies in respect of a share issue on the capital markets — Transactions in securities)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp v Skatteverket
   (Case C-540/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(d)(5) - Exemptions - Underwriting guarantee provided against payment of a commission by credit institutions to the issuing companies in respect of a share issue on the capital markets - Transactions in securities)
   2011/C 139/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Regeringsrätten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (formerly Regeringsrätten) — Interpretation of Article 13 B of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Underwriting guarantee issued by a bank to a company issuing new shares in return for payment of a commission — Transaction consisting in an undertaking by the bank to acquire part of the shares in the issuing company in the event that an insufficient number of shares is subscribed, in order to guarantee to the issuing company the financing sought by the issue (underwriting)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT laid down therein covers services supplied by a credit institution, for consideration, in the form of an underwriting guarantee to a company wishing to issue shares, where under that guarantee the credit institution undertakes to acquire any shares which are not subscribed within the period for share subscription.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-266/08 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2008 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 May 2008 in Case F-119/06, Kerstens v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/13

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2008 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 May 2008 in Case F-119/06, Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-266/08 P)
   (2008/C 247/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the contested judgment;

               —

               refer the case back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 8 May 2008 in Case F-119/06 Kerstens v Commission dismissing the appellant's action seeking (i) annulment of the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements altering the organisation chart of that office, inasmuch as that decision had the effect of reassigning the appellant, then Head of the ‘Resources’ unit, to a research position and (ii) damages in compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.
   In support of his action, a ground of appeal relied on by the appellant is that the Tribunal distorted the clear sense of the facts and the evidence and committed an error of law in applying Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and the regulations on disciplinary measures and misuse of powers in that the Tribunal concluded that there was no infringement of Article 7 on the basis of inaccurate findings of fact.
   The appellant further claims that the Tribunal did not provide an adequate statement of reasons in the contested judgment in respect of the assessment made by the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the interests of the service and in respect of the creation of an additional research department in the light of the Office's chronic shortage of staff.
   Thirdly, the appellant considers that his rights of defence were infringed, inasmuch as the reasoning of the Tribunal on several points was based on the appellant's career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006, lodged for the first time by the Commission at the hearing, and the appellant had no opportunity to express his point of view in relation to that reasoning.


title: Case F-121/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Maynard v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Maynard v Europol
   (Case F-121/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))
   2014/C 253/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ginny Maynard (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann ad D. El Khoury, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Maynard to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8/12/2012, p. 36.


title: Case T-552/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission (Action for annulment — Contract concerning financial assistance of the European Union for a project in the field of medical collaboration — Debit note — Contractual nature of the dispute — Measure not reviewable — Inadmissibility — Counterclaim for payment)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission
   (Case T-552/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Contract concerning financial assistance of the European Union for a project in the field of medical collaboration - Debit note - Contractual nature of the dispute - Measure not reviewable - Inadmissibility - Counterclaim for payment)
   2013/C 245/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and S. Lejeune, Agents, and E. Petritsi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission on 9 September 2011 in order to recover the sum of EUR 83 001,09 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance for a project and, on the other hand, a counterclaim seeking an order requiring the applicant to pay that sum together with interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action for annulment as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the European Commission EUR 83 001,09 by way of principal sum and EUR 11,37 per day in respect of default interest falling due from 25 October 2011 until discharge of the principal debt;

               3.

               Orders Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-143/89: Ferriere Nord SpA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty)

text:
 No C 137/ 18         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel
                        (First Chamber)                                    mesh) as regards the finding therein that the applicant
                                                                           participated in an agreement intended to limit German
                        of 6 April 1995                                    exports to the Benelux countries;
in Case T-143/89: Ferriere Nord SpA v. Commission of the
                  European Communities ( J )                          2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
 (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC                      by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 252 000;
                               Treaty)
                                                                      3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                           ( 95/C 137/42 )                                 claims;
               (Language of the Case: Italian)
                                                                      4 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
In Case T-143/89 : Ferriere Nord SpA, established in                       three-fifths of the Commission 's costs;
Osoppo ( Italy ), represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of
the Padua Bar, and Giuseppe Campeis, of the Udine Bar,                5 . orders the Commission to bear two-fifths of its costs.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Ernest Arendt, 8—1 0 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission              (>) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
of the European Communities ( Agents : E. Traversa , J.
Currall and A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment
of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
 ( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) — the
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Kirschner, President of Chamber, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,                                     (First Chamber)
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 in                                   of 6 April 1995
which it:
                                                                      in Case T-145/89: Baustahlgewebe GmbH against
 I. dismisses the application;                                               Commission of the European Communities i 1 )
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC
                                                                                Treaty)
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                                               ( 95/C 137/44
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      In Case T-145/89 : Baustahlgewebe GmbH, established in
                        ( First Chamber )                             Diisseldorf, Germany, represented by Arved Deringer,
                        of 6 April 1995                               Claus Tessin , Hans Jiirgen Herrmann, Joaquim Sedemund
in Case T-144/89 : Cockerill Sambre v. Commission of the              and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne, with an
                  European Communities (')                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against Commission of the
(Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                      European Communities ( Agents : N. Koch, B. Langeheine, J.
                               Treaty)                                Currall and A. Bohlke ) — application for the annulment of
                          ( 95/C 137/43 )                             Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989
                                                                      relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
               (Language of the Case: French)                         ( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ), the
                                                                      Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
In Case T-144/89 : Cockerill Sambre, formerly Steelinter SA,
established in Brussels, represented by Michel Waelbroeck             Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.
and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges, Registrar, H.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Jung, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the
                                                                      Court :
Ernest Arendt, 8—1 0 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch , E. Traversa
and J. Currall ) — application for the annulment of                   1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC
Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989                            of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel
( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) —                  mesh) as regards the finding therein that the applicant
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of H.               participated in an agreement with Sotralentz SA
Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.                     subjecting to quotas the latter 's exports to the German
Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges , H. Jung,                      market and the finding that an agreement existed
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the                  between the applicant and Trefilunion to link their
Court :                                                                    future exports to quotas;
1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC               2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
      of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under                      by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 3 million;


title: Case T-362/00: Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.2.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 45/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade Mark concerned:         Word mark ‘UltraPlus’ — Appli-              The applicant in this case, the same as in Case T-91/00 (1),
                              cation No. 716597                           challenges the refusal of the Settlements Office of the Joint
                                                                          Sickness Insurance Scheme in Luxembourg to reimburse sums
                                                                          incurred by him in the first half of the year 2000, on care
Product or Service:           Class 21 (plastic ovenware for              services needed by one of his sons, as assistance by medical
                              use in microwave, convection and            auxiliaries within the meaning of Paragraph 1 of Title X of
                              conventional ovens)                         Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance. The Settlements
                                                                          Office authorised those services only as nursing attendance
Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the              within the meaning of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of those rules.
before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Pleas in law relied on:       Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)           raised in Case T-91/00.
                              and (c) of Regulation 40/94.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 24.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Mário Campo-
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind                         largo against the Commission of the European Communi-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                     ties
                        (Case T-362/00)                                                           (Case T-372/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/49)
                         (2001/C 45/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Mário
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo                        Campolargo, residing at Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Kind, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar,             Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 15 February
                                                                                2000 annulling the appointment of the applicant as head
                                                                                of the former unit DG XIII/G/2 and his promotion to
—     annul the measures challenged for unlawful and                            grade A3, and the appointing authority’s implicit decision
      erroneous application of the system of repayment                          of 12 September 2000 giving a negative response to the
      adopted;                                                                  complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     order the Commission to carry out settlement, as in the             —     order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to
      past, on the basis of invoices in respect of expenses for                 Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      paramedical assistance produced by the insured;                           First Instance and the expenses necessarily incurred for
                                                                                the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel
                                                                                and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of law-
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    yers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of those Rules.


title: Case T-501/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/35

         Action brought on 31 August 2015 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-501/15)
   (2015/C 346/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and H. Stergiou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision

                           —

                           in so far as it relates to the financial correction concerning the sanctioning system deemed by the European Commission to be too lenient in the amount of EUR 336 064,53 (2009), EUR 403 863,66 (2010) and EUR 230 786,49 (2011);

                           —

                           in so far as it relates to the financial correction that is applied in connection with the partial control for 3 SMRs in 2009 (EUR 1 597 182 EUR 15,53 and EUR 358,20), 4 RBEs in 2010 (EUR 1 630 540,68 and EUR 6 520,50) and 4 RBEs in 2011 (EUR 1 631 326,51) in so far as it concerns the European Commission’s finding that the Netherlands has breached SMR8; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 4076) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (1) by finding, contrary to those provisions, that the Netherlands sanctioning system is too lenient.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) by finding, contrary to those provisions and in breach of the principle of legal certainty, that the Netherlands carried out a partial control for statutory management requirement 8 (‘SMR’) as set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. The applicant submits that the Commission wrongly considers the Netherlands sanctioning system not to meet all the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 (3) and of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ 2004 L 5, p. 8).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2000 in Case T-47/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Rate of partial permanent invalidity — Res judicata — Action for damages)

text:
C 259/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 29 June 2000
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
in Case T-234/95: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                         in Case T-47/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities (1)
(ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Meaning of
aid — Criterion of the private investor — Economic unit —                  (Officials — Insurance against the risk of accident and of
            Amount of the aid — Misuse of powers)                          occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                           — Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on the insurance of
                                                                           officials against the risk of accident and of occupational
                          (2000/C 259/25)                                  disease — Rate of partial permanent invalidity — Res
                                                                                judicata — Action for damages)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/26)
In Case T-234/95: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH,
formerly Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH, established in Ham-
burg (Germany), represented initially by A. Löhde, Rechtsan-                                  (Language of the case: French)
walt, Hamburg, and subsequently by W. Hofer, U. Theune,
M. Luther and K. von Gierke, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, supported by the                       In Case T-47/97: Onno Plug, formerly a member of the
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: initially E. Röder, and               temporary staff of the Commission, residing at Thônex
subsequently by W.D. Plessing, M. Schütte, W. Mueller-Stöfen               (Switzerland), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Lévi, of
and W. Kirchhoff), against the Commission of the European                  the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Communities (Agents: P. Nemitz, M. Hilf and P. Hommelhoff),                the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue
supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       Beck, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Northern Ireland (Agent: L. Nicoll) — application for the                  G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment
annulment of Commission Decision 96/236/ECSC of                            of the Commission’s implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s
31 October 1995 concerning State aid granted by the city of                request of 22 February 1996 for the adoption of a decision
Hamburg to the ECSC steel undertaking Hamburger Stahlwer-                  under Article 19 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of
ke GmbH, Hamburg (OJ 1996 L 78, p. 31) — the Court                         the European Communities against the risk of accident and of
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),                   occupational disease without seeking new expert medical
composed of J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-              reports and, second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair,          suffered by the applicant, amounting to a sum equivalent to
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  13 years of his salary — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
29 June 2000, in which it:                                                 Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
                                                                           P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
                                                                           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June
1.    dismisses the action;                                                2000, in which it:
2.    orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by
      the Commission;                                                      1.    Dismisses the action;
3.    orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the United                2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and to pay the costs
      Kingdom, which have intervened in the dispute, to bear their               of the Commission.
      own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
(1) OJ No C 64, 2.3.1996.


title: Case C-151/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-151/13)
   2013/C 171/35
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Le Rayon d’Or SARL

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Question referred

   Must Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) incorporated in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘healthcare lump sum’ disbursed by sickness insurance funds to residential care homes for the elderly pursuant to Article L. 174-7 of the Code de la sécurité sociale and exempted from value added tax under Article 261(4)(1b) of the Code général des impôts represents a subsidy which is directly linked to the price of the healthcare services provided to residents and which thus falls within the scope of value added tax?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-291/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Schweppes, S.A. v Exclusivas Ramírez, S.L. and Others

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Schweppes, S.A. v Exclusivas Ramírez, S.L. and Others
   (Case C-291/16)
   (2016/C 305/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schweppes, S.A.

      Defendants: Exclusivas Ramírez, S.L., Red Paralela, S.L., Carbóniques Montaner, S.L., Orangina Schweppes Holding BV, Schweppes International Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) and with Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC (2) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2015/2436 (3) for the proprietor of a trade mark in one or more Member States to prevent the parallel import or marketing of products coming from another Member State, bearing a trade mark which is identical or practically identical, owned by a third party, when the said proprietor has promoted a global trade mark image associated with the Member State from which the products that it intends to prohibit come?

               2.

               Is it compatible with Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 15(1) of Directive 2015/2436 for a product to be sold under a trade mark, which is well known, within the EU, the registered proprietors maintaining a global trade mark image throughout the EEA which gives rise to confusion in the mind of an average consumer concerning the commercial origin of the product?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 15(1) of Directive 2015/2436 for the proprietor of national trade marks which are identical or similar in various Member States to oppose the import into a Member State where it owns the trade mark of products, identified by a trade mark identical or similar to its own, coming from a Member State in which it is not the proprietor, when at least in another Member State where it is not the proprietor of the trade mark it has expressly or tacitly consented to the import of those same products?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 15(1) of Directive 2015/2436 and with Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for the proprietor A of a trade mark X of a Member State to oppose the import of products identified by the said trade mark if those products come from another Member State where a trade mark identical to X (Y) is recorded as registered by another proprietor B which markets the same and:

                           —

                           both proprietors A and B maintain intense commercial and economic relations, although there is no strict dependency regarding the joint exploitation of trade mark X;

                           —

                           both proprietors A and B maintain a co-ordinated trade mark strategy deliberately promoting vis-à-vis the relevant public an appearance or image of a single and global trade mark; or

                           —

                           both proprietors A and B maintain intense commercial and economic relations, although there is no strict dependency regarding the joint exploitation of the trade mark X and in addition they maintain a co-ordinated trade mark strategy deliberately promoting vis-à-vis the relevant public an appearance or image of a single and global trade mark?

      (1)  OJ 2002 C 202.

      (2)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

      (3)  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1).


title: Case C-309/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 20 April 2004 in the case of Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 20 April 2004 in the case of Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-309/04)
   (2004/C 239/03)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany) of 20 April 2004 received at the Court Registry on 21 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Hamburg-Jonas Principal Tax Office) on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the fact that on the basis of investigations carried out by customs authorities there is a suspicion that a product is subject to a ban under Community law which prohibits the export of a product eligible for a refund from a particular Member State to other Member States and to non-member countries sufficient of itself to exclude the existence of sound and fair marketable quality within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3665/87 (1) so that the actual condition or marketability of the particular product is irrelevant?

               2.

               Is confirmation of sound and fair marketable quality within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3665/87, given in a national application for payment, information for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 11(1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97?

      (1)  OJ L 351, p. 1.


title: Case C-366/15: Action brought on 14 July 2015 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/5

         Action brought on 14 July 2015 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-366/15)
   (2015/C 346/05)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2013/28/EU of 17 May 2013 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 22 August 2013.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 135, p. 14.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Titan Cement Company CA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-64/95)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95          EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/23
— cancel pursuant to Article 172 and Article 17 of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Regulation No 17/62 or, in the alternative, reduce the
     fine imposed upon the applicant, and .                        — annul or modify the Commission Decision of
                                                                         30 November 1994 ( : ) at least in so far as regards Titan,
— award the applicant costs against the respondent.                      in particular by annulling or reducing the fine imposed
                                                                         upon it,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — in any event, order the Commission to pay Titan's costs,
Procedural irregularity:                                                 and
It is submitted that the Decision should be declared void
                                                                   — take such other or further steps as justice may
upon the following grounds of procedural irregularity on                 require.
the part of the Commission:
— witholding of Statement of Objections,                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— failure to deal with reply to Statement of Objections .          The applicant alleges that the Decision is defective owing to
                                                                   infringements of essential procedural requirements and
Substantive grounds:                                               infringements of rules of law relating to the application of
                                                                   the EC Treaty, for the following reasons:
It is submitted that the Decision infringed Articles 190 and
85 of the Treaty and was so manifestly mistaken and                  I. Adequate notice and access to the file:
unfounded as to constitute a misuse of the powers of the
Commission .
                                                                           1 . Failure to give adequate notice of the case against
                                                                               the applicant, in that the Statement of Objections
The Decision was without reasoned foundation; was
                                                                               did not sufficiently particularize how the applicant
manifestly perverse in its assessment of such evidence as the                  was supposed to have participated in the alleged
Commission had before it and was arbitrary and
                                                                               agreement.
unreasonable in disregarding or misrepresenting evidence
adduced on behalf of the applicant.
                                                                           2. Failure to give the applicant access to the entirety of
                                                                               the Commission's file .
The Decision relied entirely upon a principle of 'guilt
by association' and failed completely or at least
disproportionately to attempt to assess the specific situation      II .   Evidence
of individual undertakings.
                                                                           1 . Disregard of the economic and commercial
The Decision failed to make any reasonable attempt to                          evidence, failure to take proper account of the
distinguish the actual responsibility of individual                            evidence offered by the applicant in its defense and
undertakings for involvement in the alleged agreements,                        failure to provide adequate evidence that in either
practices and infringing act.                                                  intentionally or negligently infringed Article 85 ( 1 )
                                                                               of the EC Treaty.
The applicant also submits that the fine should be cancelled
or reduced .
                                                                           2.  Erroneous assessment of evidence in that the
                                                                               Decision contains a number of inconsistencies and
                                                                               discrepancies.
                                                                   III. Reasoning
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Titan Cement
Company CA against the Commission of the European                          1 . Failure to provide adequate reason to explain why
                         Communities                                           the target of an alleged conspiracy should be
                       (Case T-64/95 )                                         punished by a severe fine in the same way as the
                                                                               alleged initiators of such a conspiracy and,
                        ( 95/C 119/46 )
                                                                               correspondingly, breach of the principles of natural
                                                                               justice, proportionality and equal treatment.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2. Error of substantive law, by determining the
An action against the Commission of the European                               existence of an infringement on the basis of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                              applicant's membership of an association which
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                            was a member of Cembureau, and, in particular, by
1995 by Titan Cement Company CA, represented by Ian S.                         asserting that the applicant bore responsibility for
Forrester QC and Aristotelis N. Kaplanidis, with an address                    the European Task Force 'within the framework of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Tom                        Cembureau', when this task force was etablished
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, 1011 Luxembourg.                                        with the purpose of harassing Greek producers .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
IV.  Fines                                                           — annul the Commission's Decision of 23 September 1993
                                                                         (mentioned in the Commission's letter of 27 September
     1 . Failure to provide adequate reasons to explain why              1993 ), where it provides for the closure of the
         the applicant should be fined .                                 international part of the proceeding in relation to the
                                                                         12 German undertakings and six Spanish undertakings
     2. Breach of the principle of natural justice and of                therein specified,
         Regulation No 17/62, by imposing a huge fine on
         the applicant, without adequately establishing any          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
         fault on the part of the company.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     3 . Breach of the principles of proportionality, natural        The action is based on the following grounds :
         justice and equal treatment.
                                                                       I. Infringement of procedural rules
 V. Duration
                                                                           1 . Infringement of the rights of the defence :
     1 . Manifest error of assessment in holding that the                      The applicant argues that the Commission has
         applicant was party for 11 years to a 'single and                     infringed a number of fundamental rights of the
         continuous agreement' with other producers, when                      defence, particularly the right to be heard and the
         the Decision itself alleges that other producers had                  right of access to the file .
         reached agreement among themselves to take
         various actions against the applicant during that                 2. Breach of the principle of the protection of
         period.                                                               legitimate expectations and the principle of
                                                                               non-discrimination. Inconsistency with a previous
     2 . Incorrect determination of the duration of the                        decision .
         alleged infringement, without regard to the                       3 . The formulation of new objections in the
         statistical, commercial and technical evidence                        Decision .
         indicating that the applicant at least was not party
         to any infringement during the relevant period.                  4. Non-observance of the time limits applicable to the
                                                                               Commission's action .
(M Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement.
                                                                           5 . Defective adoption/authentication of the decision.
                                                                      II. Misapplication of Article 85 of the Treaty. The
                                                                          applicant argues that the accusations against it are
                                                                           unfounded, and that the Commission has misapplied
                                                                           Community law, especially Article 85 of the Treaty; its
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Italcementi SpA                     position is based on the following grounds:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-65/95 )                                     1 . The relevant geographical market was erroneously
                                                                               defined .
                        ( 95/C 119/47)
                                                                           2. Article 85 did not apply in the absence of a
                (Language of the case: Italian                                 competitive situation.
                                                                           3 . There was no           'single    and    continuous
An action against the Commission of the European                               infringement'.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                       4. The conduct of the applicant in relation to:
1995 by Italcementi SpA, whose registered office is in                         ( a ) the 'Cembureau' agreement;
Bergamo (Italy), represented by André Faures of the Brussels
Bar, Cesare Lanciani of the Milan Bar, Albertu Predieri of                     ( b ) the 'European Task Force';
the Florence Bar, Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar,
Francesca Moretti of the Bologna Bar, and Giulio Rizza of                      (c) the 'European Cement Export Committee';
                                                                                and
the Siracuse Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15, Côte                        (d ) the 'White Cement Committee';
d'Eich, Luxembourg.
                                                                               could not be regarded as infringing Article 85 of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Treaty.
                                                                     III. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. The
— annul in whole or in part Commission Decision                           applicant argues that the Commission has seriously
    94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a                           infringed Article 190 of the Treaty, in particular
    proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases                  because :
    IV/33.126 and 33.322 ) ( x ), in so far as it concerns the
    applicant,                                                             1 , the Decision of 30 November 1994 is vitiated both
                                                                               by inconsistency between the statement of reasons
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed                        and the operative part and by an insufficient
    upon the applicant,                                                        statement of reasons; and


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Removal from the register of Case C-395/03 (1)

   (2005/C 143/48)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 25 February 2005, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-395/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 February 1996 in Case T-235/94: Roberto Galtieri v. European Parliament (Officials - Household allowance - Recovery of undue payment - Misuse of powers - Legitimate expectations - Damages)

text:
13 . 4 . 96           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/7
Action brought on 26 February 1996 by the Kingdom                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                        ( Case C-58/96                                  in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                          ( 96/C 108/ 12 )
                                                                        (') OJ 1996 L 20 , p. 17.
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ 1996 C 46 , p. 11 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 26 February 1996 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ,
Foreign Trade and Development Aid , with an address for                         Removal from the register of Case C-390/93 ( )
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
Girondins .                                                                                ( 96/C 108/ 13 )
The applicant claims that the Court should annul                        By order of 17 January 1996 the President of the Court of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 127/96 of 25 January                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional             from the register of Case C-390/93 : Commission of the
to the tariff quota for imports of bananas during the first             European Communities v . Kingdom of Spain .
quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and
Marilyn ( ] ) and order the Commission to pay the costs .               (') OJ No C 261 , 25 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2 , orders each party to bear its own costs, including the
                     of 27 February 1996                                       costs relating to the application for interim measures.
      in Case T-235/94 : Roberto Galtieri v. European
                            Parliament ( 1 )                             (') OJ No 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
 (Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue
payment — Misuse ofpowers — Legitimate expectations —
                              Damages)
                           ( 96/C 108/14 )
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 28 February 1996
                                                                                in Case T-294/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis
                                                                             v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (')
 In Case T-235/94, Roberto Galtieri, temporary agent of the
 European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by                (Officials — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the
 Harold Wouters, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                  Staff Regulations of Officials)
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bertrand                                                   ( 96/C 108 / 15 )
 Assoignons, 8 Rue des Girondins, v . European Parliament
 ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Kieran Bradley ) — application
 for, first, the annulment of the decision of the European                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
 Parliament, notified by letter of 19 January 1994, to recover
 sums unduly paid to the applicant by way of household                    In Case T-294/94, Konstantinos Dimitriadis, a former
 allowance , secondly, an order that the Parliament reimburse             official of the Court of Auditors of the European
 the sums deducted from his monthly salary and, thirdly, an               Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
 order that the Parliament pay damages and default interest,              Markos Papazissis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address
 the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of               for service at the applicant's address, 4a Boulevard
  A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos,                Grande-Duchesse Charlotte, v . Court of Auditors of the
 Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Steiner,
  a judgment on 27 February in which it:                                   Christos Komninos and Paolo Giusta ) — application for,
                                                                           first, the annulment of Decisions Nos 8543 and 8912 of the
                                                                           Court of Auditors of 8 March and 1 July 1994, rejecting
  1 , dismisses the application;                                           respectively his request for assistance under the first


title: Case T-719/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/34

         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
   (Case T-719/14)
   (2014/C 448/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tri Ocean Energy (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person concerned was ‘responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria’, or a person ‘benefiting from or supporting the regime’, or a person associated with any such person. The Council failed to establish that the reasons relied on against the entity concerned were well founded.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has, at no stage, been given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against it, as required by the case law of the Court.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for its inclusion.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put its case effectively to the Council. The Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate. The interference with the applicant extends beyond a financial impact, and has also resulted in damage to its reputation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant has in fact provided ‘support to the Syrian regime’ and to has benefited from the regime. The Council has also wrongly identified the applicant as ‘Tri Ocean Trading a.k.a. Tri-Ocean Energy’ suggesting that the two legal persons are the same. The applicant is a separate company, distinct from Tri Ocean Trading.