title: Action brought on 3 March 1997 by SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA - against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-46/97)

text:
 10 . 5 . 97             EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/21
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   SIC's complaints concern essentially two major separate
      adopted by the Commission implicitly rejecting the               matters arising from the relationship between the
      applicant's request,                                             Portuguese State and RTP. First, the matter of granting the
                                                                       concession for the public television service to RTP and, in
                                                                       particular, the question of compensation which the State
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                       makes annually to RTP under that concession . In that
                                                                       regard, SIC calls in question, in the first place, that certain
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   amounts paid by way of compensation should be
                                                                       described as remuneration for a public service; it disputes,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 secondly, the criteria on which the calculation of said
 Case T- 16/97 ( M.                                                    compensation is based, and the amounts; and, thirdly, on
                                                                       the basis of the foregoing, it disputes the amounts of the
                                                                       compensation which the Portuguese State paid to RTP in
 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                 the period from 1992 to 1996 . Secondly, SIC's complaints
                                                                       also concern other ways in which the Portuguese State has
                                                                       been financing RTP in recent years directly and indirectly,
                                                                       in particular the exemption from certain charges, the
                                                                       agreement with Portugal Telecom, the system of payment
                                                                       of certain contributions to social insurance, capital
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by SIC — Sociedade In                  contributions and debenture loans .
dependente de Comunica?ao SA — against Commission of
                   the European Communities                            In support of its application, the applicant alleges:
                           ( Case T-46/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/45                             — breach of the principle of the right of interested parties
                                                                           to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as they were
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                          adopted without the applicant having been given the
                                                                           opportunity to comment on their content or on the
                                                                           main procedural documents, in particular the detailed
An action against the Commission of the European                           study commissioned by the Commission on the matter
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          and the observations and documents submitted by the
Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1997                       Portuguese State,
by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica^ao, SA,
whose registered office is at 119 Estrada da Outurela,
Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha, representend by Carlos Botelho               — breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Moniz and Ana Santos Reis, Advogados, with chambers at                     reasons, under Article 190 of the EC Treaty and the
63 6 ? Rua Castilho, Lisbon, with an address for service in                procedural rules relating to the preliminary stage of
Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                        assessment of complaints lodged pursuant to and for
Rue .                                                                      the purposes of Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            — breach of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as
                                                                           it considered to be compatible with that provision
                                                                           certain measures adopted by the Portuguese State
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     contrary thereto,
      Communities of 7 November 1996 SG(96 ) D/9555,
      under the heading 'State Aid NN 141 /95 — Financing
      of public television channels', notified to the applicant        — lack of a statement of reasons for the contested
      by letter No 54333 of 20 December 1996,                              decisions as a result of the failure to carry out a
                                                                           detailed and impartial inquiry into the case.
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
      Communities, with the heading 'Plainte de SIC contre             As regards specifically the compensatory payments, it
      RTP', notified to the applicant by a letter from the             should be borne in mind, according to the applicant, that
      Commission No 54365 of 20 December 1996,
                                                                      — the Commission does not make clear the definition of
— order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.                  'public service' which it adopted,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — the Commission does not analyze the criteria
                                                                           employed to determine the compensation paid by the
                                                                           Portuguese State to RTP in return for provision of the
The applicant, the same party as the applicant in Case
                                                                           public service,
T-231 /95 SIC v. Commission ( ] ), contests two decisions
concerning a set of measures adopted by the Government
in favour of RTP, a public operator holding the concession            — the Commission, in particular, has not replied to the
for public service television which, in that capacity,                     arguments expressly put forward by SIC in so far as
operates Portuguese television channels 1 and 2 .                          they concern failure to consider actual cost,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/22            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
— in the specific analysis of the compensation paid for              Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Onno Plug against
    each year in the period between 1992 and 1996, the                      the Commission of the European Communities
    Commission provides information which is manifestly                                     ( Case T-47/97)
    inadequate and did not lead evidence in the
    proceedings which would enable it to arrive at the                                       ( 97/C 142/46 )
    conclusions it did,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— infringement of Article 92 of the Treaty, inasmuch as              An action against the Commission of the European
    the measures complained of by the applicant do not               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    constitute State aid. As regards the granting of                 Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 1997
    compensation, the applicant considers that, even if it is        by Onno Plug, residing in Thonex ( Switzerland),
    accepted ( merely as a working hypothesis ) that                 represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
    fulfilment by RTP of requirements which justify                  the   Brussels   Bar,  with    an   address  for  service    in
    payment of compensation could be characterized as                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30,
     'public service requirements', the criteria when                Rue de Cessange .
    determining the remuneration for the provision of
    such 'public service' lead directly to the conclusion            The applicant claims that the Court should :
    that State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the
    Treaty is involved .                                             — annul the implied decision rejecting his complaint of
                                                                         22 February 1996 and, in so far as is necessary, the
The applicant points out that the option adopted by the                  express decision rejecting his complaint, adopted on
Portuguese legislature manifestly creates objective                      27 November 1996 and notified to him on 2 December
conditions for the breach of the rules on competition.                   1996, in so far as the Commission refused to adopt
                                                                         the decision provided for by Article 19 of the Rules on
— RTP is in direct and immediate competition with SIC                    the Insurance of Officials of the European
    and with TVI ( and is also in competition with other                 Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
    major channels =— in particular European channels —                  Occupational Disease without seeking new expert
    mainly broadcast in Portugal via satellite or                        medical reports,
     distributed by cable )
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay a sum equivalent to 13
                                                                         years of his salary, on the basis that account is to be
— RTP's activity as holder of the concession for a public                taken of the amount of pay to which he would have
     service is an ancillary, marginal activity which                    been entitled on the day of delivery of the judgment
    constitutes a very small part of its programming                     and that interest will be payable on that sum at 8 %
     ( especially of its programmes in periods in which                  per annum from the date of the judgment to be given,
     significant income from advertising is generated ).
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the entire costs .
— Almost the whole of the 'public service programme' is
     undertaken by RTP's second channel alone, since                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     RTP's Channel 1 is, in practice, exclusively
    commercial ( more commercial than the private                    The applicant, formerly a temporary servant of the
    channels of other European countries, according to the           European Commission, was given retirement with an
     findings of the Commission ).                                   invalidity pension with effect from 1 January 1985 . In
                                                                     1989, he brought an action against the Commission
Besides the question of compensation, the applicant                  relating to the procedure for being invalided out and the
mentions      other  State   measures  in  favour    of  RTP:        relationship between the procedures laid down in
exemptions from charges and taxes, waiver by the Social              Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, and for
Security of a charge of Esc 1 206 600 000, late payments             damages . The Court of First Instance of the European
tolerated by Portugal Telecom ( owner of the television              Communities gave judgment on 27 February 1992 ( Case
signal distribution network ) and the conditions of the              T-165/89 Plug v. Commission [ 1992] ECR 11-367).
debenture loan for 1994 .
                                                                     On 22 February 1996, the applicant submitted a request
                                                                     under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations seeking, in
In the applicant's view, it is clear that the aid granted by         particular, that the Commission take a decision on the
the State to RTP does not fall under any of the                      request for recognition of the occupational nature of his
exemptions provided for in Article 92 ( 2 ) of the Treaty.           disease, in accordance with Article 73 of the Staff
Nor can reliance be placed on Article 90 of the Treaty in            Regulations and the Insurance Rules, without seeking new
order to attempt to demonstrate that the aid of which                expert medical reports .
RTP is the recipient is lawful under Community law.
Moreover, the Commission does not rely on that provision             The applicant contends that the Commission has not
in the contested decisions .
                                                                     granted the request but has made the decision referred to
                                                                     in Article 19 of the Insurance Regulations subject to a new
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996, p. 14.                                expert medical opinion. The medical reports in the
                                                                     applicant's file contain all the information that is needed
                                                                     for   the   Commission      to   take   that  decision .   The


title: Action brought on 13 June 1997 by Maurizio Munaro against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-180/97)

text:
C 271/18              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 9 . 97
Action brought on 13 June 1997 by Maurizio Munaro                        Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, with an address for
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    service at 9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil (France ).
                          ( Case T-180/97)
                            ( 97/C 271 /29 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 (Language of the case: French)                          — annul the letter of the Secretary General of the
                                                                             Commission of 21 May 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1997
by Maurizio Munaro, residing in Boussu ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an              The applicants challenge the decision of the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                      not to take action on their complaint, concerning the
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                               alleged failure of the French authorities to fulfil their
                                                                         obligations under Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                         without examining certain documents which they consider
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             to be essential to prove the infringements complained of.
                                                                         In support of their action for annulment, they plead
                                                                         manifest and serious failure to observe :
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 August 19 96
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                        — the fundamental rights recognized under the European
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                               Convention on Human Rights,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     — the status of res judicata of the judgment delivered by
     adopted by the Commission on 3 February 1997,                           the Court of Justice on 14 July 1988 in Case 298/87,
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         — the settled case-law concerning the principles of the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                  liability of Member States for the whole of the harm
                                                                             caused to an individual by breaches of Community
                                                                             law for which they are responsible, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         — the principle of equality of arms, which would militate
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                     against the Commission's being able to exclude from
relied upon in Case T- 16/97 ( J ).                                          proceedings a number of documents which are
                                                                             essential in order to restore the rights of the parties in
                                                                             question .
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 June 1997 by Carla Micheli,
Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Smanor SA, Hubert                      Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and Marinella
Segaud and Monique Segaud against the Commission of                      Abbate     against the     Commission of the European
                    the European Communities                                                      Communities
                          ( Case T-l 82/97 )                                                   ( Case T-183 /97 )
                             ( 97/C 271 /30 )                                                    ( 97/C 271 /31
                 (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                         An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1997
by Smanor SA, established in Saint Martin d'Ecublei                      by Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and
( France ), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud, residing at                Marinella Abbate, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona,
Saint Martin d'Ecublei ( France ), represented by Laurence               Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,


title: Action brought on 13 March 1997 by J. P. M. Wolfs against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-67/97)

text:
No C 142/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 13 March 1997 by J. P. M. Wolfs                        Action brought on 17 March 1997 by M. V. Diederen
against the Council of the European Union and the                        against the Council of the European Union and the
            Commission of the European Communities                                   Commission of the European Communities
                            ( Case T-67/97)                                                          ( Case T-69/97)
                              ( 97/C 142/64 )                                                         ( 97/C 142/65 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                           An action against the Council of the European Union and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               the Commission of the European Communities was
Communities on 13 March 1997 by J. P. M. Wolfs, of                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Gronsveld ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker                Communities on 17 March 1997 by M. V. Diederen, of
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                 Doenrade (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                         Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                      of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
Guillaume .                                                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                         Guillaume .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
       applicant the sum of Fl 132 162, together with interest           ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
       thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                          applicant the sum of Fl 137 580, together with interest
        1992 until the date of payment in full;                                 thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                                1992 until the date of payment in full;
        in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
        applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall                      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 55 016                          applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
        ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of                   think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 56 237
        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest                  ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
        thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
        1 992 until the date of the payment in full;                             thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                                1992 until the date of the payment in full;
 ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
                                                                          ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T-50/97 (»).
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 f 1 ) Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                 Case T-50/97 ( ! ).
                                                                          ( ] ) Page 24 of this Official Journal .


title: Case C-34/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution control — Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-34/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)
   2013/C 9/12
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade, A. Alcover San Pedro and S. Petrova, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M.J. Lois, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1) — Limit values and alert thresholds for the protection of human health — Concentrations of PM10 in ambient air

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed to ensure that, for the years 2005 to 2007, the daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air did not exceed the limit values set in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, in the zones and agglomerations of Braga, Porto Litoral, Área Metropolitana de Lisboa Norte and Área Metropolitana de Lisboa Sul, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case F-94/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Piessevaux v Council (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Plea of inadmissibility — Concept of an act adversely affecting the applicant — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/46

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Piessevaux v Council
      (Case F-94/13) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Plea of inadmissibility - Concept of an act adversely affecting the applicant - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Vincent Piessevaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, and lastly by L. Ponteville, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application to annul the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  M. Vincent Piessevaux shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 336 of 16.11.2013, p. 32.


title: Case C-41/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 27 January 2014  — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat National des Antiquaires

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat National des Antiquaires
   (Case C-41/14)
   2014/C 102/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christie’s France SNC

      Defendant: Syndicat National des Antiquaires

      Question referred

   Must the rule laid down by Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, (1) which makes the seller responsible for payment of the royalty, be interpreted as meaning that the seller is required definitively to bear the cost thereof without any derogation by agreement’s being possible?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/439/EEC — Driving licences — Minimum age requirement to drive certain vehicles — Possibility of driving vehicles in a category other than the one for which a driving licence has been issued — Compulsory registration and exchange of driving licences)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/439/EEC - Driving licences - Minimum age requirement to drive certain vehicles - Possibility of driving vehicles in a category other than the one for which a driving licence has been issued - Compulsory registration and exchange of driving licences)
   (2005/C 271/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and W. Wils) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 September 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Paragraph 6(3), point 6, and (4), the first sentence of Paragraph 10(2), and Paragraphs 29(1) and (3) and 47(2) of the Regulation relating to the entitlement of persons to drive on the highway (Verordnung über die Zulassung von Personen zum Strassenverkehr) of 18 August 1998, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(2), 3, 5(2)(b), the third indent of Article 6(1)(b) and Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-17/16: Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ms v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/29

         Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ms v Commission
   (Case T-17/16)
   (2016/C 326/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         accordingly:

               —

               hold that the European Commission is non-contractually liable on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU;

               —

               order the production of the documents declared confidential by the Commission and providing the necessary basis for the exclusion decision;

               —

               order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the Commission’s wrongful conduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

               —

               order the Commission to publish a letter of apology to the applicant and to reinstate him within Team Europe;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging unlawful acts committed by the Commission and constituting serious breaches of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, thus triggering the Commission’s non-contractual responsibility. In the first place, the applicant considers that the Commission failed properly to inform him of the allegations and evidence put forward against him and did not give him the opportunity effectively to formulate his observations with respect to them before the exclusion decision was taken, contrary to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the general principles of good administration, respect for the rights of the defence and Article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. In the second place, the Commission failed carefully and impartially to examine all the evidence relevant to the present case before deciding to exclude the applicant from the Team Europe network, contrary to the principle of diligence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter and to Articles 8, 9 and 11 of the Code. In doing so, the Commission also infringed the principle of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence laid down in Article 48 of the Charter. In the third place, the applicant maintains that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, making vague and, moreover, incorrect allegations, contrary to Article 41(2) of the Charter and Article 18 of the Code. Lastly, the decision taken by the Commission is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, manifestly unfounded and disproportionate.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered real and certain loss as a result of the alleged conduct of the Commission in calling into question the applicant’s moral and professional integrity.


title: Case T-2/02: Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo Balmori Abella against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.3.2002
Action brought on 27 December 2001 by Colette di                         Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo Balmori
Marzio against Commission of the European Com-                           Abella against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                                 munities
                         (Case T-335/01)                                                           (Case T-2/02)
                          (2002/C 68/31)
                                                                                (2002/C 68/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by Colette di                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Marzio, residing in Ginasservis (France), represented by Georg-          European Communities on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo
es Vandersanden Laure Levi, lawyers.                                     Balmori Abella, residing in Madrid, represented by Valentı́n
                                                                         Playá Serra, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 18 July 2001, notified on 5 Septem-
      ber 2001, annulling and replacing a decision of 4 January
      2001 with the same purpose of transferring the applicant,          —     annul notice of open competition COM/A/12/01 for
      within the same Directorate General (Directorate General                 the constitution of a reserve for the recruitment of
      for Personnel and Administration) from the External                      administrators in the field of the management of property,
      Security Unit in the Protocol and Security Services                      logistics and operations, issued by the Commission of the
      Directorate to the Information Systems and Informatics                   European Communities on 23 October 2001.
      Infrastructure Unit of the Directorate General for
      Resources, entailing a change of place of work from
      Cadarache in France to Brussels, annul, in so far as
      necessary, the decision of 4 January 2001 and annul the
      decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on             Pleas in law and main arguments
      17 September 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay damages with interest assessed,
      ex æquo et bono, provisionally, at EUR 25 000;                     The applicant is challenging notice of open competition
                                                                         COM/A/12/01 (1), inasmuch as it states, in point III(B), headed
                                                                         ‘Special conditions’, that ‘candidates must have been born after
—     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.                       30 November 1955’. The applicant claims that that provision
                                                                         imposes discriminatory conditions based on age, since the age-
                                                                         limit is not justified by any special characteristic of the posts
                                                                         to be filled which might suggest that the work could not be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          carried out by persons in the group discriminated against.
                                                                         Consequently, that condition is in breach of the European
                                                                         Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
                                                                         mental Freedoms (Articles 5, 8 and 14), which the European
In support of her application, the applicant alleges disregard           Union has undertaken to respect (Article 6(2) of the Treaty on
for the interests of the service, manifest error of assessment           European Union), as well as Article 13 of the EC Treaty and
and breach of the principle to have regard for the welfare of            the case-law of the Court of Justice. The applicant further
officials and of the general principle of respect for privacy and        states that, in addition to being illegal, such discrimination is
family life. Finally, the applicant claims that the principle of         gravely prejudicial to workers aged over 45, since that
good management and sound administration and the principle               approach on the part of the Community institutions helps to
to have regard for the welfare of officials have been infringed.         create a bias against the recruitment of those workers.
According to the applicant, the contested decision takes no
account whatever of her personal interests and of her family
situation. Nor was the transfer decided in the interests of the
service. The applicant claims rather that her transfer is the            (1) OJ 2001 C 269 A, p. 13.
result of a tussle over posts between the services concerned.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Indication of provenance — Regional labels)

text:
C 101/10                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                26.4.2003
the consequences of such non-registration do not adversely affect in                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
any other way the protection which that directive confers on
commercial agents in their relations with their principals.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
                                                                               in Case C-211/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                           (Third Chamber)                                     transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)
                            of 6 March 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 101/18)
in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —
          Indication of provenance — Regional labels)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (2003/C 101/17)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               In Case C-211/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Agent: C. Schmidt) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
                    in the European Court Reports)                             N. Mackel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                               adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               necessary to comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European
                                                                               Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concern-
In Case C-6/02, Commission of the European Communities                         ing the processing of personal data and the protection of
(Agents: H. van Lier and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:                   privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1),
G. de Bergues and A. Colomb): Application for a declaration                    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
that, by maintaining the national legal protection afforded to                 obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional labels                     composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Normandie’,              D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges;
‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limousin’, ‘Langue-               S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
doc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed                 judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  1.    Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed periods, to adopt
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:                                               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                                and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
1.    Declares that, by maintaining the national legal protection                    processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
      afforded to the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional                telecommunications sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      labels ‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Nor-              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      mandie’, ‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limou-
      sin’, ‘Languedoc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;                2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.


title: Case T-396/07: Action brought on 30 October 2007 — France Télécom v OHIM (UNIQUE)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/42

         Action brought on 30 October 2007 — France Télécom v OHIM (UNIQUE)
   (Case T-396/07)
   (2007/C 315/80)
   Language in which the case was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by B. Potot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 is invalid;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark UNIQUE for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38 (application No 5 312 392)

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94 of the Council (1) inasmuch as, in the applicant's view and contrary to what is stated in the contested decision, the word ‘UNIQUE’ is not devoid of any distinctive character.

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


title: Case C-321/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Scope — Non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs — Statement on the outer packaging describing the product in question as a cosmetic product — Consumer protection)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH
   (Case C-321/14) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Scope - Non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs - Statement on the outer packaging describing the product in question as a cosmetic product - Consumer protection))
   (2015/C 354/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Krefeld

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Colena AG

      Defendant: Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs do not fall within the scope of that regulation, notwithstanding the fact that their outer packaging bears the statement ‘cosmetic eye accessory, subject to the EU Cosmetics Directive’.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-252/04: Action brought on 18 June 2004 by Caviar Anzali against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/35

         Action brought on 18 June 2004 by Caviar Anzali against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-252/04)
   (2004/C 217/62)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 June 2004 by Caviar Anzali, established in Colombes (France), represented by Jean-François Jésus, lawyer.
   Novomarket S.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 April 2004 (Case R 479/2003-2, Caviar Anzali v Novomarket);

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Novomarket S.A.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark 'Asetra' for, inter alia, goods in Classes 29 and 31 (Application No 2187805)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Caviar Anzali S.A.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               National and international figurative mark 'Astara' for goods in Class 29

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Rejection of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the nature of the system used before the Board of Appeal requires that the application be re-examined and that transmission of the translation after expiry of the time-limit set by the Opposition Division cannot lead to rejection of the opposition.


title: Case C-16/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-16/14)
   2014/C 102/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Property Development Company NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Is interest on borrowed capital which, according to Article 35(4) of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978, may be included in the production costs to the extent that it relates to the period of production, part of the taxable amount of an application within the meaning of Article 5(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977, that is to say, part of the ‘cost price’ within the meaning of Article 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive and/or the incidental expenses within the meaning of Article 11A(2) of the Sixth Directive?

      (1)  Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).

      (2)  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 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2000 in Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenker SA v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use which contain the substance "amfepramone" — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
24.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 95/13
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am
                                                                           Main, Germany, represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and
                      of 17 November 2000                                  S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of A. Schiltz,
in Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli v Commission of the                   Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de Banque et
                   European Communities (1)                                d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey, against European Central
                                                                           Bank (ECB) (Agents: C. Zilioli and J.M. Fernández-Martin) —
(Officials — Absence of staff report — Action for damages                  application for annulment, pursuant to Article 236 EC and
— Inadmissibility — Implicit rejection of a request not                    Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European
disputed within the time-limits — Express confirmation of                  System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, of
                    that rejection — Damage)                               Administrative Circular No 11/98 of 12 November 1998
                                                                           concerning ECB Internet usage policy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-
                           (2001/C 95/24)
                                                                           dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                           has made an order on 24 October 2000, the operative part of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        which is as follows:
In Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli, a former official of the             1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Munich
(Germany), represented by G. Marchesini, lawyer with a right               2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
of audience before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the                     (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. Dal Ferro)
— application for compensation for the non-material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the absence of
staff reports for the reference periods 1993-1995 and 1995-
1997 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 17 November
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.    The action is dismissed;                                                                          INSTANCE
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 19 October 2000
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           in Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenk-
                                                                               er SA v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                           authorisations for medicinal products for human use which
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 contain the substance ‘amfepramone’ — Directive
                                                                                75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                        of 24 October 2000
                                                                                (2001/C 95/26)
in Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central
    Bank and Others v European Central Bank (ECB) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Members of staff of the European Central Bank — Adminis-
trative circular — Time-limit for bringing an action —
                           Inadmissibility)                                In Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenker
                                                                           SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by X. Leur-
                           (2001/C 95/25)                                  quin and L. Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt,
                                                                           7 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) —
                                                                           application for suspension of operation of the Commission
In Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central                   decision of 9 March 2000 relating to the withdrawal of
Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes                  marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human
Priesemann, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt,             use which contain ‘amfepramone’ [Decision C(2000) 453] —
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the ECB,                    the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order
residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany, Maria Concetta                     on 19 October 2000, the operature part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/14                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
1.    The operation of the decision of the Commission of 9 March          Action brought on 20 December 2000 by Franz-Martin
      2000 relating to the withdrawal of marketing authorisations         Wasmeier against the Commission of the European Com-
      for medicinal products for human use which contain amfepra-                                      munities
      mone [C(2000) 453] is suspended in relation to the applicant.
                                                                                (Case T-381/00)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                                (2001/C 95/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                European Communities on 20 December 2000 by Franz-
                                                                          Martin Wasmeier, of Munich (Germany), represented by
                                                                          Gerhard Maier, of Messrs Kalaitzis, Türck & Maier, Bernau am
                      of 15 November 2000                                 Chiemsee (Germany).
in Case T-157/00: Nicole Robert v European Parliament (1)                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 7.9.2000 concerning
(Officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits
                                                                                the applicant’s complaint and the Commission’s decision
— Action brought prior to rejection of the complaint —
                                                                                of 24.9.1999 concerning his classification in grade A 7;
                          Inadmissibility)
                                                                          —     order the Commission to adopt a fresh decision concern-
                           (2001/C 95/27)                                       ing the applicant’s classification in grade, accompanied
                                                                                by a comprehensive statement of reasons;
                    (Language of the case: French)                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-157/00: Nicole Robert, an official of the European
Parliament, residing at Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by             Pleas in law and main arguments
A. Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 2 Rue des Dahlias,
v European Parliament (Agents: Y. Pantalis and D. Moore) —                Having sat an open competition, the applicant was appointed
application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to             an official of the Commission and classified in grade A 7, step
promote the applicant to grade B 1 in the context of the 1999             1. The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision,
promotions procedure, and of the decisions promoting other                seeking classification in grade A 6.
officials in the course of the procedure for that year — the
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,
President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges;              The action is directed against the Commission’s decision
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 November 2000, the                rejecting that complaint. The applicant asserts inter alia that:
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          —     the Commission’s decision is vitiated by errors in the
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                             investigation of the facts and errors of judgment;
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                            —     the Commission wrongly failed to carry out a comprehen-
                                                                                sive assessment of the applicant’s qualifications; and
                                                                          —     the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                      and of equal treatment have been violated.


title: Case C-540/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag v Belgian State (Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation — Obligations of the Member States under Articles 10 EC and 293 EC)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag v Belgian State
   (Case C-540/11) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends - Bilateral convention which precludes double taxation - Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation - Obligations of the Member States under Articles 10 EC and 293 EC)
   2013/C 101/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 57(2) EC and 293 EC — Permissibility of rules of national law which allow double taxation notwithstanding the existence of a bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Amendment of national law after the convention had been concluded — Bringing into question of an acquired right — Obstacle to the free movement of capital

      Operative part of the order

   Insofar as Community law, as applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC and 293 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a situation in which the Member State, which has undertaken, in a bilateral double taxation convention, to establish a mechanism to eliminate such double taxation of dividends, then abolishes that mechanism by way of a legislative amendment that has the effect of reintroducing a double taxation.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-110/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-110/06)
   (2006/C 86/44)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing Directive 2003/4/EC expired on 14 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 41, p. 26


title: Case C-593/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark — Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation concerning thin capitalisation of subsidiaries — Inclusion in the taxable income of a lending company of the loan interest paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary — Tax exemption for interest paid by a resident borrowing subsidiary — Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes — Need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark — Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-593/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation concerning thin capitalisation of subsidiaries - Inclusion in the taxable income of a lending company of the loan interest paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary - Tax exemption for interest paid by a resident borrowing subsidiary - Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes - Need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance))
   (2017/C 053/04)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest paid by a resident subsidiary, in so far as that subsidiary is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure by reason of the rules limiting the deduction of interest paid in cases of thin capitalisation, but which excludes the exemption that would result from the application of its own thin-capitalisation legislation in the case where the subsidiary is resident in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-532/14 R: Order of the General Court of 20 August 2014  — Alsharghawi v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — List of persons and entities to which those measures apply — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing of interests)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/10

         Order of the General Court of 20 August 2014 — Alsharghawi v Council
   (Case T-532/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - List of persons and entities to which those measures apply - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Weighing of interests))
   2014/C 361/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bashir Saley Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: E. Moutet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53) and Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 78, p. 24) in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-342/17: Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/63

         Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission
   (Case T-342/17)
   (2017/C 239/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany), Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

               —

               order that the Commission bear the costs, including the costs of the applicants.

      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 contested decision suffers from a detective statement of reasons by failing to unambiguously set out the geographic scope of the infringement in the operative part and the statement of reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 11 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport by relying on contacts between competitors which took place in Switzerland and predominantly affected air freight transported between Switzerland and third countries.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of non-retroactive application of laws by relying on contacts affecting only routes outside of the EEA that took place before the entry into force of Regulation No 1/2003 (1).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport by characterizing, without proper analysis, contacts taking place outside the EEA, contacts relating to the WOW alliance (alliance among Japan Airlines Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, SAS Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo) and contacts relating to the commissioning of surcharges as part of the same single and continuous infringement with contacts between competitors that took place at headquarter level.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in so far as it is premised on the notion that contacts between competitors taking place outside the EEA constitute infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the applicants, agreements or concerted practices with respect to EEA inbound cargo shipments do not restrict competition within the EEA, nor do they affect trade between the Member States. Moreover, so the applicants claim, the contested decision applies the wrong legal standard in analysing whether government intervention in a number of relevant jurisdictions precludes the application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

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


title: Case C-492/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala
      (Case C-492/16)
      (2016/C 454/30)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Törvényszék

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Incyte Corporation

         Defendant: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the date of the first authorization to place the product on the market in the Community’ is incorrect in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, within the meaning of that regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, (2) where that date was determined without taking account of the Court of Justice’s interpretation of the law in the judgment in Seattle Genetics (Case C-471/14), with the result that it is appropriate to rectify the date of expiry of the supplementary protection certificate even if the decision to grant that certificate was made prior to that judgment and the time limit for appealing against that decision has already expired?

                  2.

                  Is the industrial property authority of a Member State which is entitled to grant a supplementary protection certificate required to rectify, of its own motion, the date of expiry of that certificate in order to ensure that that certificate complies with the interpretation of the law set out in Case C-471/14?

         (1)  OJ 1996, L 198, p. 30.

         (2)  OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1.


title: Case T-147/12: Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/29

         Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission
   (Case T-147/12)
   2012/C 165/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision REM 02/09 of 16 September 2011 (C(2011) 6393 final);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision REM 02/09 of 16 September 2011 (C(2011) 6393 final) determining that remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case, which concerns imports by the applicant of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus — country of origin, China — in 2004 and 2006.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code

                           —

                           The applicant is doubtful about the Commission’s assessment that there was an error on the part of the German customs authorities in the present case.

                           —

                           In any event, the applicant does not recognise the (alleged) error. The applicant, who acted in good faith and is experienced, cannot be accused of a lack of due care. In view of the complex legal position and the longstanding practice of the German authorities, the applicant can claim a legitimate expectation.

               2.

               Infringement of Article 239 of the Customs Code

                           —

                           The Commission made a procedural legal error in that, by means of a simple reference to refusal pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, it summarily also denied remission of import duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code, without any separate assessment.

                           —

                           Furthermore, the Commission also committed a substantive legal error in failing to recognise that there are ‘special circumstances’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code in the present case, and that the criteria for remission under that provision were satisfied.

               3.

               Infringement of general legal principles
               The applicant further claims that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the primary-law principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality, the principle of good administration and the principle of equal treatment.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2003 in Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Action for annulment)

text:
C 135/28                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA                   (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the
Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings                     Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy
proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) — the                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lena-
erts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio,               1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2001 promotions procedure;
3 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs;
1.     Annuls Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002
       not to oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.02.
       and to declare it compatible with the common market and the
       EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings
       proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) so far as
       concerns the markets in Italy, Spain, Finland, the United
       Kingdom and Ireland;
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                                of 1 April 2003
3.     Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own
       costs;                                                              in Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
4.     Orders SEB SA and De Longhi SpA to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
                                                                           bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
( 1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.02.                                                 with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
                                                                           renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
                                                                                Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti, a former member of
                                                                           the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, residing in Leggiuno (Italy), represented by
                           of 9 April 2003                                 B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
in Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández v Commission                     Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal
                of the European Communities ( 1)                           Ferro) — application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                           28 September 2000 by which the authority empowered to
                                                                           conclude contracts of employment rejected the complaint
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                      lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that the employ-
                 merits — Action for annulment)                            ment relationship which bound her to the Commission was a
                                                                           relationship of indefinite period under a contract as a member
                                                                           of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Con-
                           (2003/C 135/44)                                 ditions of Employment of other Servants, renewed on more
                                                                           than one occasion with the effects referred to in the last
                                                                           paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions — the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                           H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2003, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Woluwé-Saint-Étienne (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel,
                                                                           2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berar-
dis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the decision of the             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 95.
Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the
2001 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  22 June 2005  in Case C-190/04 P: Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, John Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait (Appeal — Action for damages — Unsubstantiated refusal of a United Kingdom court of last resort to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling — Failure to adopt measures on the part of the Council and the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Clear inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/8

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 22 June 2005
   in Case C-190/04 P: Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, John Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Unsubstantiated refusal of a United Kingdom court of last resort to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling - Failure to adopt measures on the part of the Council and the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Clear inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 296/16)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-190/04 P: Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, (lawyer: J. Barnett) the other parties to the proceedings being: Council of the European Union, (Agents: M. Sims and M. Bauer), Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Docksey and M. Shotter) John Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait — appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 23 April 2004, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 22 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr French, Mr Neiger and Mr Leighton shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004


title: Case C-286/04 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2004 by Eurocermex SA against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/17

         Appeal brought on 5 July 2004 by Eurocermex SA against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-286/04 P)
   (2004/C 217/32)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2004 (fax 29.6.2004) by Eurocermex SA, represented by A. Bertrand, Avocat.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reverse the decision of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2004;

               —

               annul the contested decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Court of First Instance carried out a separate examination of the various elements of which the mark applied for is composed and, confirming the decision of the Board of Appeal, held that those elements lacked distinctiveness so that the consumer would not be able to identify the origin of the goods. In so doing, the Court of First Instance sought to separate the various elements in order to consider them individually and thus deny the mark applied for any distinctive character. That represents a serious error in analysis and in law, as it is the overall perception of the sign as applied for that must be considered and not the various elements of the sign, taken individually.
   In any event, the mark acquired its distinctive character in consequence of the widespread use which has been made of it as a rallying sign for a product and/or an undertaking.


title: Case C-92/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/26

         Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-92/05)
   (2005/C 82/53)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Bruno Stromsky and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/32/EC of 23 April 2003 introducing detailed specifications as regards the requirements laid down in Council Directive 93/42/EEC with respect to medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               in the alternative, declare that by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/32/EC;

               3.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 1 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ No L 105, 26.04.2003, p. 18.