title: Case C-315/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-Land

text:
21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/19
4.    In so far as necessary, remit the case to the Court of First         2)   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
      Instance for the procedure to be continued;
                                                                                (a)   Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of
5.    Order the defendants and respondents to bear the costs                          22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of
      of the proceedings.                                                             the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing
                                                                                agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) also generally
                                                                                applicable to agreements of the kind described in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       Question 1?
—     Misinterpretation of the concept of ‘direct concern’ within               (b) Is that regulation also applicable if, prior to onward
      the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC:                          selling, the roast coffee purchased is further proces-
      The contested judgment wrongly states that a directive is                       sed for sale as a coffee drink?
      not, before the adoption of national measures and
      independently of them, such as to affect directly the legal          3)   If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
      situation of economic operators. With respect to the
      fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, what matters is                       Is Article 3(d) of Regulation No 1984/83 to be construed
      merely whether the directive as such has a direct effect                  as meaning that agreements of the kind described in
      on the legal situation of an undertaking (without waiting                 Question 1, under which it is the contracting parties’
      until it is transposed by the Member States).                             estimation that the total sales quantity will be supplied
                                                                                within a period of less than five years, are also covered by
—     Incorrect assessment of the effects of the directive on the               the exemption under the regulation or is that the
      appellants’ situation, and hence inadequate reasoning in                  case only if there are also objective grounds for such
      the contested judgment: Directive 98/43 as such already                   expectations?
      constitutes a process which amounts to an expropriation
      (the possibility of advertising for the existing brand               4)   Is Article 85(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
      ceases, so that its value for diversification products falls              as meaning that an agreement of the kind described in
      to zero). This affects the appellants’ legal situation, not               Question 1 is also invalid inasmuch as, in the event of
      merely their ‘factual situation’.                                         premature termination of the agreement, it provides for
                                                                                repayment of a rebate by the seller paid to the purchaser
                                                                                on commencement of the agreement determined by
                                                                                reference to total contractually agreed sales, and do the
                                                                                aforementioned provisions require that there should be
                                                                                no claim for repayment under that head?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Republic of Austria by order of that court of
11 May 2000 in the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard Öster-
reich GesmbH against 1. Eduard Mitsche, 2. Maria Mits-
                        che, 3. Peter Roman                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
                                                                           nanzhof, by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the
                          (Case C-314/00)                                  case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-
                                                                                Land
                          (2000/C 302/36)
                                                                                (Case C-315/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                                           (2000/C 302/37)
(Supreme Court), Republic of Austria, of 11 May 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 21 August 2000, for a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
preliminary ruling in the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard Öster-             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
reich GesmbH against 1. Eduard Mitsche, 2. Maria Mitsche,                  (Federal Finance Court), of 25 May 2000, received at the Court
3. Peter Roman on the following questions:                                 Registry on 21 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-Land
1)    Is Article 85(1) (now Article 81(1) EC) of the EC Treaty             on the following questions:
      also applicable to purchasing agreements under which,
      over a period of several years, the goods agreed to be               1.   Does the term ‘letting of immovable property’ in
      purchased are to be called down and paid for by the                       Article 133(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) cover the pro-
      purchaser at current ‘list price’, albeit there is a stipulation          vision for consideration of a building constructed from
      for delivery of minimum annual quantities in line with                    prefabricated components which is to be removed follow-
      the buyer’s overall requirements, subject to a specified                  ing the termination of the contract and may be re-used
      permissible variation?                                                    on another site?
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
2.    Is it of any significance in that connection whether the                 deadline laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, especially
      lessor makes available to the lessee both the building and               when that Directive makes clear the importance of strict
      the land on which it is erected, or merely the building,                 compliance with these parameters. While the three-tier
      which he has erected on the lessee’s land?                               approach to dealing with noncompliant group water
                                                                               supplies adopted by the Irish authorities offers the
                                                                               prospect of improved compliance in the years to come, it
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                               comes very late by reference to the compliance deadline,
                                                                               is insufficiently grounded in national legislation, and is
                                                                               very far from being implemented at the level of individual
                                                                               local authorities and individual non-compliant water
                                                                               supplies.
                                                                         —     The second major concern of the Commission is that,
                                                                               notwithstanding the new legislation, Ireland’s transpo-
                                                                               sition of Directive 80/778/EEC still fails to properly
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by the Commission                             reflect the binding character of the parameters of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                            Directive in relation to group water supplies.
                         (Case C-316/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 229 of 30.8.1980, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 302/38)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 August 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Richard Wainright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
                                                                         order of that court of 28 July 2000, in the case of Bacardi-
                                                                         Martini S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle
—     declare that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                                United Football Company Limited
      Articles 7(6) and 19 of Directive 80/778/EEC (1) in failing
      to ensure compliance with microbiological parameters 57
      (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms) of Annex I of                                   (Case C-318/00)
      the Directive 80/778/EEC in respect of certain public
      water supplies and certain group water supplies identified
      in official drinking water reports and in correspondence                                    (2000/C 302/39)
      concerning Ballycroy, and is further in breach of its
      obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and 19 of Directive
      80/778/EEC in failing, in its implementing legislation, to         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      reflect the binding character of the requirements of               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
      Annex I of the Directive in relation to group water                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division of 28 July
      supplies, and is also in breach of its obligations under the       2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 August
      Treaty;                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bacardi-Martini
                                                                         S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle United
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    Football Company Limited, on the following question:
                                                                         1.    Are Articles L. 17 to L.21 of the Code des débits de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                boissons (the so-called ‘Loi Evin’ provisions), Article 8 of
                                                                               Decree no 92-280 of 27 March 1992 and the provisions
                                                                               of the Code de Bonne Conduite of 28 March 1995,
Two major concerns have led the Commission to make this                        contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49
application to the Court against Ireland:                                      EC) insofar as they prevent or restrict (a) the advertising
                                                                               of alcoholic drinks at sporting events taking place in
—     The first concern relates to the prevalence and persistence              Member States other than France when the events are to
      of problems of non-compliance with microbiological                       be televised in France and (b) the broadcasting in France
      parameters in Irish drinking water supplies, notably                     of sporting events taking place in other Member States at
      group water supplies, fifteen years after the compliance                 which there is advertising of alcoholic beverages?


title: Case C-336/09 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2009 by the Republic of Poland against the order made by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) on 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/23

         Appeal brought on 24 August 2009 by the Republic of Poland against the order made by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) on 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission
   (Case C-336/09 P)
   2009/C 282/40
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission;

               —

               annul Article 5, Article 6(1), (2) and (3), Article 7(1) and Article 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; (1)

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

               —

               hear the appeal sitting as the Grand Chamber.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (2) and of the Treaty of Accession, by finding that the period for bringing an action for annulment of Regulation No 60/2004 began to run on the day upon which the regulation was published in the official languages of the Community of 15, and therefore before publication was completed in the official languages of the enlarged Community,

               —

               erroneous interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by finding that the Republic of Poland could effectively bring an action for annulment of Regulation No 60/2004 before it acceded to the European Union, acting under that provision as a legal person,

               —

               breach of the principle of a Community governed by the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection, by denying the Republic of Poland the right to submit the legality of Regulation No 60/2004 for judicial review, despite the fact that that regulation was addressed to the Republic of Poland as a Member State,

               —

               breaches of the principle of solidarity and the principle of good faith, by denying the Republic of Poland the right to submit for judicial review the legality of a measure which altered the conditions of its accession to the European Union and infringed the balance of rights and obligations that result from membership of the Community,

               —

               procedural breaches in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, through the failure to hear arguments of the Republic of Poland relating to breach of the principle of solidarity and the principle of good faith, and a lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested order.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8.

      (2)  OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59.


title: Case T-20/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Lack of individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causation — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/38

      Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-20/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Lack of individual concern - Non-contractual liability - Causation - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2015/C 016/60)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Huynh Duong Vi Nguyen (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, action for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(65)(b) and (67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in that those provisions make the right to reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time relating thereto conditional upon receipt of the expatriation or foreign residence allowance, and, secondly, claim for damages based on Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Ms Huynh Nguyen Duong Vi shall bear her own costs, and also those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 January 1997 in Case T-117/95: Corman v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Regulations (EEC) No 570/88 and (EC) No 455/95 - Aid for butter for use in the manufacture of certain categories of products - Definition of butter - Definition of intermediate product - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
26 . 4 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 131 / 11
Communities on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of the                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la               those in Case C-56/97 ( 3 ); the time-limits expired on
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         1 March 1995 and 1 January 1995 respectively.
                                                                        (') OJ No L 104, 23 . 4 . 1994, p . 32 .
The Commission of the European Communities claims                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 201 , 4 . 8 . 1994 , p . 26 .
that the Court should :                                                 ( 3 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     time-limits laid down the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
     with Commission Directive 94/1 6/EC of 22 April 1994                        Removal from the register of Case C-29/96 ( 1 )
     amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on undesirable                                              ( 97/C 131 /27 )
     substances and products in animal nutrition              and
     Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July amending
     Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting                  By order of 19 February 1997 the President of the Fifth
     intra-Community trade in bovine animals and                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of . the European
     swine ( 2 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 96/         Case C-29/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     16/EC and Article 2 of Directive 94/42/EC,
                                                                        High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench
                                                                        Division ( United Kingdom)): Norbrook Laboratories Ltd
                                                                        v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs .                                                            (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Glesener, against Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agent: Gerard Berscheid ) — application for
                        of 30 January 1997                              annulment of Article 1 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 455/95
                                                                        of 28 February 1995 amending Regulations ( EEC )
in    Case    T-117/95 :     Corman    v.   Commission    of   the
                                                                        No 1547/87 and ( EEC ) No 1589/87 as regards the
                     European Communities (')                           buying-in of butter by the intervention agencies and
                                                                        Regulations ( EEC ) No 2191 /81 and ( EEC ) No 570/88 as
 (Action for annulment — Regulations (EEC) No 570/88
and (EC) No 455/95 — Aid for butter for use in the
                                                                        regards the grant of aid for the purchase and sale of butter
                                                                        at a reduced price to certain categories of consumers and
manufacture of certain categories of products —
Definition of butter — Definition of intermediate product
                                                                        industries ( OJ No L 46, 1 . 3 . 1995 , p. 31 ), the Court of
                                                                        First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcfa
— Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                                                                        Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J.
                          Inadmissibility)
                                                                        Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                           ( 97/C 131 /28 )                             given a judgment on 30 January 1997 in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-117/95 N. Corman SA, established in Goe                       C ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Limbourg ( Belgium ), represented by Lucette Defalque, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue


title: Case T-381/17: Action brought on 16 June 2017 — Acsen v Parliament

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/31

         Action brought on 16 June 2017 — Acsen v Parliament
   (Case T-381/17)
   (2017/C 269/42)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ibram Acsen (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Gagu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul Article 22(1)(c) of Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies in so far as that provision applies to the absolute nullity of mergers.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that no limitation period can apply in the case of absolute nullity.

               —

               Since Article 22(1)(c) of Directive 2011/35/EU does not distinguish between relative nullity and absolute nullity, the period of six months for initiating nullification proceedings also applies in the event of absolute nullity, contrary to the principle that no limitation period can apply in the case of nullity of such a kind.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of 26 January 1996 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Kari Uecker (Case C-64/96)

text:
No C 133/16         | EN j                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
    completion — in official publications of the Member                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    State ?                                                              Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of
                                                                         1 March 1996 in the case of Vera Jacquet v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                                ( Case C-65 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/34 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                              European Communities by an order of the Fifth Chamber of
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of                      the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Higher Labour Court,
26 January 1996 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  Hamm) of 1 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
                          v. Kari Uecker                                 Registry on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                         ( Case C-64/96 )                                case of Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the
                           ( 96/C 133/33 )                               following questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . May the spouse — not being a national of a Member
European Communities by an order of the Fifth Chamber of                     State — of a national of that Member State in which the
the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm ( Higher Labour Court,                         spouses live and in which the spouse who is a national is
Hamm ) of 26 January 1996 , which was received at the                        employed also rely on the right under Article 11 of
Court Registry on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 0 of 15 October 1968
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v . Kari Uecker on the                  on freedom of movement for workers within the
following questions :                                                        Community ?
1 . May the spouse — not being a national of a Member
    State — of a national of that Member State in which the
    spouses live and in which the spouse who is a national is            2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
    employed also rely on the right under Article 11 of
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( x ) of 15 October 1968                   Does that right of the spouse who is not a national of a
    on freedom of movement for workers within the                            Member State to 'take up any activity as an employed
    Community ?                                                              person' throughout the territory of the Member State
                                                                             concerned include the right, with respect to the
2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative :                           conditions of employment and work, in particular with
                                                                             respect to the conditions for an effective temporal
    Does that right of the spouse who is not a national of a                 limitation of an employment relationship, to be treated
    Member State to 'take up any activity as an employed                     by an employer in the Member State concerned in the
    person' throughout the territory of the Member State                     same way as that employer would have to treat the
    concerned include the right, with respect to the                         spouse who is a national of the Member State ?
    conditions of employment and work, in particular with
    respect to the conditions for an effective temporal
    limitation of an employment relationship, to be treated
                                                                         3 . If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative:
    by an employer in the Member State concerned in the
    same way as that employer would have to treat the
    spouse who is a national of the Member State ?                           Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation ( EEC ) No
                                                                              1612/68 in conjunction with Article 48 (2 ) of the EC
3 . If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative :                      Treaty confer on a worker in a Member State of which
                                                                             he is a national the right to the same treatment as is due
    Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation (EEC )                       to workers who are nationals of another Member State ,
    No 1612/68 in conjunction with Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC                and is a national provision which has been held by the
    Treaty confer on a worker in a Member State of which                     Court of Justice to be inapplicable against the latter
    he is a national the right to the same treatment as is due               persons therefore also inapplicable against the relevant
    to workers who are nationals of another Member State,                    Member State's own nationals and their spouses who
    and is a national provision which has been held by the                   are not nationals of a Member State ?
    Court of Justice to be inapplicable against the latter
    persons therefore also inapplicable against the relevant
    Member State's own nationals and their spouses who
    are not nationals of a Member State ?                                0 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475 .
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 .


C 366/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-385/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-160/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/70)                                                        (1999/C 366/73)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-385/94: Johann Wißmüller v Council of the European              Case T-160/95: Harald Meuser v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 248 of 23.9.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-397/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-202/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/71)                                                        (1999/C 366/74)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-397/94: Gerjet Meyenburg v Council of the European              Case T-202/95: Heinrich Gottmann v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 400 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 351 of 30.12.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-399/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-150/96 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/72)                                                        (1999/C 366/75)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: French)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-399/94: Josef Speckbacher v Council of the European             Case T-150/96: Austin Rowan v Commission of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case T-55/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-45/11, De Nicola v EIB

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/45

         Appeal brought on 9 February 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-45/11, De Nicola v EIB

   (Case T-55/16 P)
   (2016/C 106/54)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 61 to 67 of that judgment;

               —

               Consequently, order the EIB to pay compensation to Dr De Nicola for the harm suffered, as requested in the application instituting proceedings, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to a different chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the paragraphs set aside; and order the EIB to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present case is in essence identical to Cases F-55/08 and F-59/09, which involved proceedings between the appellant and the European Investment Bank.
   The appellant states, in this regard, that, in the judgment under appeal, no adjudication was made on the forms of order seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2009, of the decision of 25 March 2010 refusing promotion, of the 2009 guidelines, of the EIB President’s two letters of 17 and 30 November 2010, and of ‘all related, consequent and prior measures’.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground: obligation to set aside the 2009 guidelines and the EIB President’s letters of 17 and 30 November 2010.

                           —

                           The appellant submits, in particular, in this regard, that if the Court were to determine that the guidelines in question are unlawful, their setting-aside would oblige the EIB to carry out its own assessments in accordance with more appropriate criteria which safeguard the appellant and his rights.

               2.

               Second ground: the contractual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the EIB.

                           —

                           The appellant argues in this connection that he sought damages for breach in respect of the EIB’s contractual liability, and not in respect of the European Union’s non-contractual liability. The judgment under appeal, inter alia, treats the agents of the EIB in the same way as officials of the other European institutions, even though the employment relationship at issue in the proceedings is governed by private law, thus rendering the legal rules laid down for civil servants inapplicable to the present case.

               3.

               Third ground: application for an order requiring payment of compensation for material and non-pecuniary harm.

                           —

                           The appellant submits that the conclusions reached on this point in the judgment under appeal are manifestly wrong in both fact and law, and that consequently all conditions are satisfied for upholding his right to such compensation.


title: Case C-392/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 5 October 2009 — Uszodaépítő Kft. v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 5 October 2009 — Uszodaépítő Kft. v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály
   (Case C-392/09)
   2010/C 11/23
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uszodaépítő Kft.

      Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision of a law of a Member State, which entered into force on 1 January 2008, after the right to deduct had arisen, and which, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT paid and declared in relation to supplies of goods or services made in the 2007 financial year, requires the amendment of the content of invoices and the submission of a supplementary declaration, compatible with Articles 17 and 20 of the Sixth Directive? (1)

               2.

               Is the measure laid down by Paragraph 269(1) of the new VAT Law, according to which, if the requirements set out in the previous question are complied with, rights and obligations must be determined and applied in accordance with the provisions of that Law, even where they arose before the entry into force thereof, within the limitation period, compatible with the general principles of Community law, and, in particular, is it objectively justifiable, reasonable, proportionate and consistent with the principle of legal certainty?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-241/17: Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Republic of Poland v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/41

         Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-241/17)
   (2017/C 195/55)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 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), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 25 708 035,13 incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               In support of the action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) through the application of a financial correction in relation to expenditure incurred by the Polish authorities as compensation for non-harvesting operations in 2011 in the context of exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector laid down by Regulation No 585/2011, (2) on the basis of a misinterpretation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that that expenditure was carried out by the Polish authorities in accordance with EU legislation, and in particular did not infringe Article 85 of Regulation No 543/2011. (3)

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2011 L 160, p. 71).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).


title: Case F-41/08: Action brought on 30 March 2008 — Honnefelder v Commission

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/38

         Action brought on 30 March 2008 — Honnefelder v Commission
   (Case F-41/08)
   (2008/C 128/81)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Stephanie Honnefelder (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bode, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO AD/26/05 on the ground that she was not awarded enough points
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 10 May 2007 and the decision of 14 December 2007 on the applicant's complaint and order the Commission to assess whether the applicant can be included on the reserve list in a manner that does not infringe the principle of equal treatment and follows proper procedure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               as a precautionary measure, enter a judgment by default.


title: Case T-353/10: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission (Action for annulment — Debit note — Objection of inadmissibility — Contractual nature of the dispute — Nature of the action — Act open to challenge)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/19

         Order of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission
   (Case T-353/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Debit note - Objection of inadmissibility - Contractual nature of the dispute - Nature of the action - Act open to challenge)
   2011/C 355/34
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission on 22 July 2010 for recovery of the sum of EUR 109 415,20 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C–10/09: Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C–10/09) (1)

   2009/C 220/64

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-356/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 September 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Dr Christine Kleist

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 September 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Dr Christine Kleist
   (Case C-356/09)
   2009/C 282/49
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Respondent: Dr Christine Kleist

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, (1) as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, to be interpreted — in the context of a system of employment law in which the general protection of employees against dismissal is determined by their social (financial) dependence on the job — as precluding a provision of a collective agreement offering special protection against dismissal, over and above the statutory general protection against dismissal, only until that point in time at which, in a typical case, there is a social (financial) safety net in the form of an old-age pension if men and women become entitled to that old-age pension at different times?

               2.

               In the context of such a system of employment law, does Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, preclude a decision by a public employer terminating the employment of a female employee just a few months after she acquires the financial safety net of an old-age pension, in order to employ new workers who are already pressing to join the job market?

      (1)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40


title: Case C-381/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo
   (Case C-381/16)
   (2016/C 335/55)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera de lo Civil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna

      Defendant: Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

      Question referred

   Is the claim for the recovery of ownership of a Community trade mark on grounds other than those set out in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) and, in particular, in accordance with the cases provided for in Article 2(2) of Spanish Law 17 of 7 December 2001 on Trade Marks (BOE No 294 of 8 December 2001), compatible with EU law and in particular with that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


C 118/28              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-506/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-479/98 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/70)                                                   (2001/C 118/73)
By order of 22 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 4 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-506/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-479/98: Kingdom of Spain v
European Communities v Portugal.                                    Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-189/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-209/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/71)                                                   (2001/C 118/74)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-189/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-209/99: (reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Spain.                                       ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn): Birgit Frings v Blenderm-
                                                                    ann GmbH.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-468/99 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-312/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/72)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/75)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-468/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain              from the register of Case C-312/99: Commission of the
and Northern Ireland.                                               European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway (Failure of an EEA State to fulfill obligations — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Ownership limitations and voting right restrictions in financial services infrastructure institutions — Proportionality — Legal certainty)

text:
               29.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/13

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 16 July 2012
   in Case E-9/11
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure of an EEA State to fulfill obligations — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Ownership limitations and voting right restrictions in financial services infrastructure institutions — Proportionality — Legal certainty)
   2012/C 369/11
   In Case E-9/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions in Norway, such as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2), and (3) and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3) and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on the Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 EEA and 40 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 July 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions in Norway, such as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2) and (3), and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3), and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on the Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Joined Cases C-350/06 and C-520/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 January 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) and House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (Working conditions — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Sick leave — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Compensation for paid annual leave not taken before the end of the contract because of sickness)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 January 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) and House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Joined Cases C-350/06 and C-520/06) (1)

   (Working conditions - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Compensation for paid annual leave not taken before the end of the contract because of sickness)
   (2009/C 69/04)
   Language of the case: German and English
   Referring courts
   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf, House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gerhard Schultz-Hoff (C-350/06), Stringer and Others (C-520/06)

      Defendants: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (C-350/06), Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (C-520/06)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf, House of Lords — Interpretation of Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, p. 9) — Right to paid annual leave subject to the following conditions: actual presence in the workplace, maintenance of the capacity to work during the leave, and exercise not capable of extension beyond a deadline in the following year — Right of a worker on indefinite sick leave to take annual leave during that sick leave — Right of a worker who has been dismissed while on long-term sick leave to receive compensation for the annual leave not taken during the leave year
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation or practices according to which a worker on sick leave is not entitled to take paid annual leave during that sick leave.

               2.

               Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practices which provide that the right to paid annual leave is extinguished at the end of the leave year and/or of a carry-over period laid down by national law even where the worker has been on sick leave for the whole or part of the leave year and where his incapacity to work has persisted until the end of his employment relationship, which was the reason why he could not exercise his right to paid annual leave.

               3.

               Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practices which provide that, on termination of the employment relationship, no allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken is to be paid to a worker who has been on sick leave for the whole or part of the leave year and/or of a carry-over period, which was the reason why he could not exercise his right to paid annual leave. For the calculation of the allowance in lieu, the worker's normal remuneration, which is that which must be maintained during the rest period corresponding to the paid annual leave, is also decisive.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-94/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(1) and (2) — Supply of services by undertakers — Application of a reduced rate to the service involving transportation of a body by vehicle)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-94/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(1) and (2) - Supply of services by undertakers - Application of a reduced rate to the service involving transportation of a body by vehicle)
   2010/C 179/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96 to 99(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Activities of undertakers — Obligation to apply a single rate of tax to an indivisible complex service provided by undertakers — Prohibition on applying variable reduced rates of VAT

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-339/05: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 4 August 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/35

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 4 August 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol
   (Case C-339/05) (1)

   (2006/C 294/62)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 21.11.2005.


title: Case C-133/99: Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
— Breach of the requirement to state reasons;                                     the production of milk protein. Directive 83/417/EEC is
                                                                                based on Article 94 EC (ex Article 100), and its object is
— Infringement of the principle of equality.                                      to remove barriers to trace. This means that Directive
                                                                                83/417/EEC — the legal basis of which is (only) Article 94
                                                                                EC (ex Article 100) — cannot limit the scope of Regulation
( 1) OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37.                                                         (EEC) No 2921/90. Moreover, Regulation (EEC) No
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 411.                               2921/90 does not contain any provision referring to
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 169.                                Directive 83/417/EEC.
( 4) OJ 1989 L 121, p. 4.
                                                                                In the alternative, the Kingdom of the Netherlands con-
                                                                                siders that the production of caseinates involving the
                                                                                addition of AAS has taken place in accordance with
                                                                                Directive 83/417/EEC.
                                                                                The Commission is incorrect in its further assertion that
                                                                                the granting of aid for production of the caseinate known
Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                             as EMST is contrary to Article 1(1) and (3) of Regulation
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                                (EEC) No 2921/90. EMST is not produced from a caseinate
                             Communities                                          but from residues of semi-finished products.
                           (Case C-133/99)                                   — Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                                729/70 (4) and breach of the principle of the duty to
                           (1999/C 226/16)                                        cooperate in good faith, of the audi alteram parte rule and
                                                                                of the agreed preventive approach: the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands acknowledges that Regulation (EC) No
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         1287/95 (5) did not become applicable until the financial
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      year commencing on 16 October 1995, but considers that
Communities on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                                Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 constitutes a
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and Nynke Wijmen-                       specific enunciation of the obligation incumbent on the
ga, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                  Commission to cooperate in good faith in the clearance of
The Hague, acting as Agents.                                                      the accounts of the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.
                                                                                The Commission has completely ignored the criticism
                                                                                expressed by the conciliation body, persisting instead in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       the views previously advanced by it without putting
                                                                                forward any detailed arguments in support. The preventive
1. annul Commission Decision 1999/187/EC (1) of 3 February                        approach agreed within the framework of the Belle pro-
     1999 — notified on 12 February 1999 — on the clearance                       cedure has not been adopted in any respect whatever,
     of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect                    although there was every reason to adopt it. The Com-
     of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of                      munity legislation clearly does not fend itself to an
     the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,                       unequivocal interpretation. As soon as it became clear that
     in so far as it excludes the Netherlands from Community                      the Commission had objections, both the Netherlands
     financing in the sum of NLG 39 182 606 (composed of                          authorities and the undertaking concerned adopted very
     NLG 32 746 529 in relation to the use of aluminium                           dynamic measures, despite the doubts which existed, and
     ammonium sulphate (‘AAS’) and NLG 6 436 077 in                               continue to exist, regarding the validity of those objections.
     relation to the production of EMST) with regard to aid for                   By failing to take those circumstances into account when
     the processing of skimmed milk into casein and caseinates;                   fixing the amount of the adjustment, the Commission has
                                                                                acted in disregard of the promise expressly made by it
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.                                         concerning the application of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 729/70.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              — Breach of the principle of legal certainty.
— Infringement of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                             — Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
     2921/90 (2) on aid for the production of casein and
                                                                                reasons.
     caseinates from skimmed milk: the Commission is incor-
     rect in its assertion that the production of caseinates
     involving the use of AAS is contrary to the conditions laid             ( 1) OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37.
     down in Directive 83/417/EEC (3) and that, consequently,                ( 2) OJ 1990 L 279, p. 220.
     the conditions for the grant of aid under Regulation (EEC)              ( 3) OJ 1983 L 237, p. 25.
     No 2921/90 have not been fulfilled. Regulation (EEC) No                 ( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
     2921/90 concerns the pursuit of objectives within the                   ( 5) OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1.
     framework of the common agricultural policy, and lays
     clown conditions for the granting of aid for the processing
     of milk. That aid is intended to achieve price stability in


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Procedure - Obligation to deliver judgments in cases concerning the same decision at the same time - Rules of Procedure of the Commission - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Fine)

text:
C 333/4                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.11.1999
4. Dismisses the cross-appeal by Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly        2. Orders Hercules Chemicals NV to pay the costs.
    Anic SpA, then Enichem Anic SpA;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 77 of 28.3.1992.
5. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings
    before the Court of First Instance;
6. Orders Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly Anic SpA, then
    Enichem Anic SpA, to pay the costs relating to these proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 77 of 28.3.1992.                                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                                                                          in Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
                                                                          of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     the College of Members of the Commission — Competition
                                                                          rules applicable to undertakings — Concepts of agreement
                                                                          and concerted practice — Principles and rules applicable to
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           evidence — Presumption of innocence — Fine)
                           of 8 July 1999                                                           (1999/C 333/07)
in Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission                                        (Language of the case: German)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Procedure — Obligation to deliver judgments in                                     in the European Court Reports)
cases concerning the same decision at the same time — Rules
of Procedure of the Commission — Procedure for the
                                                                          In Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG, whose registered office is in Marl,
adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the                   Germany, represented by H.-J. Herrmann and subsequently by
Commission — Competition rules applicable to undertakings                 F. Montag, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service
    — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Fine)                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 8
                                                                          Rue Zithe, supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in
                         (1999/C 333/06)                                  Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
                                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, appeal against the
                                                                          judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of
                   (Language of the case: English)                        10 March 1992 in Case T-9/89 Hüls v Commission [1992]
                                                                          ECR II-499, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                                                                          party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
In Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV, whose registered                European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen and B. Jansen)
office is at Beringen, Belgium, represented by M. Siragusa, of            the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporte-
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d’Eich,
                                                                          ur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advo-
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louter-
the European Communities (First Chamber) of 17 December                   man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
1991 in Case T-7/89 Hercules v Commission[1991] ECR II-                   given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
1711, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
to the proceedings being the Commission of the European                   1. Dismisses the appeal;
Communities (Agent: K. Banks) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                    2. Orders Hüls AG to pay the costs;
G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Rag-
nemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Hol-                  3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
stein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
1. Dismisses the appeal;


title: Case T-88/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Tzirani v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Filling an A2 post — Rejection of candidature — Failure to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Infringement of the rules for appointment of officials at grade A1 and A2)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Tzirani v Commission
   (Case T-88/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Filling an A2 post - Rejection of candidature - Failure to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Infringement of the rules for appointment of officials at grade A1 and A2)
   (2006/C 212/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie Tzirani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 May 2003 to reject the applicant's candidature for the A2 grade post of Director of the ‘Social policy, Luxembourg staff, health and safety’ Directorate in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General of the Commission; an application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 May 2003 to appoint Ms D.S. for that post and, if necessary, an application for annulment of the implied rejection of the applicant's complaint against those two decisions
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission to appoint Mme D.S. for the post concerned in the vacancy COM/063/03 and also the decision to reject the candidature of the applicant for that post.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004


24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 202/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-382/00 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-238/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/66)                                                          (2002/C 202/68)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 30 May 2002 the President of the Second Chamber              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-238/01:
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-382/00:                  Centre Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
Monsanto Company v Council of the European Union.                        (CESD — Communautaire, A.s.b.l.) v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/01 and
                          T-161/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/67)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/02 (1)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/69)
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber                                (Language of the Case: Spanish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/
01 and T-161/01: Raymond Maxwell and Liam O’Bradaigh                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber
v Commission of the European Communities.                                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/02: Guiller-
                                                                         mo Balmori Abella v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001 and C 289 of 13.10.2001.                      ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-488/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 November2008 by Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Appeal brought on 12 November2008 by Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case C-488/08 P)
   (2009/C 82/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Matthias Rath (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In its contested order, the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision of the First Board of Appeal, according to which, with regard to food supplements and dietetic substances for non-medical purposes, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word mark ‘EPICAN’ notified by the appellant and the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN’.
   The appellant bases his appeal on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance, he claims, based its assessment of the similarity between the goods and signs on factual mistakes. If the Court of First Instance had correctly assessed the facts, it would necessarily have concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs. This is so, in particular, because, as the Court of First Instance correctly held, consumers accord an increased level of attention to the goods which are the subject of the dispute.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2004 in Case T-92/04 R: Marta Christina Moren Abat v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Competition — Suspension of operation — Admissibility)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/24

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 June 2004
   in Case T-92/04 R: Marta Christina Moren Abat v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim measures - Competition - Suspension of operation - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 239/54)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-92/04 R: Marta Christina Moren Abat, resident at Brussels (Belgium), respresented by G. Lebitsch, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. Krämer, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of Competition COM/A/2/02 for the constitution of a reserve for future recruitment of administrators (A7/A6) in the Environment field, or alternatively, for the suspension of the validity of the reserve list of candidates of that competition — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 9 June 2004, in which he:

               1.

               Refuses the application for interim measures;

               2.

               Reserves the costs.


title: Case T-454/13: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SNCM v Commission (State aid — Maritime cabotage — Aid implemented by France in favor of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation — Service of general economic interest — Compensation for an additional service to the service of Basis to cover peak periods during the tourist season — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Altmark judgment — Determination of the amount of aid)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SNCM v Commission
   (Case T-454/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Maritime cabotage - Aid implemented by France in favor of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for an additional service to the service of Basis to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Altmark judgment - Determination of the amount of aid))
   (2017/C 121/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: initially by A. Winckler, F.-C. Laprévote, J.-P. Mignard and S. Mabile, and subsequently by A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, and finally by F.-C. Laprévote and C. Froitzheim, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and M. B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Corsica Ferries France SAS (Bastia — France), (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) awarded by France to Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Corsica Ferries France SAS.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case F-110/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Nill v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Nill v Commission
   (Case F-110/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/78)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 46.