C 55/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case C-260/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/46)                                                          (2003/C 55/49)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/01 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-260/01: European Parliament v
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Finanziaria Immobiliare            Council of the European Union.
Perugino SpA v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-310/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-90/01 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/50)
                         (2003/C 55/47)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-310/01 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-90/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, AMGA —
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): San Marco SpA and Others
                                                                        Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. v Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l, A.G.E.S.I. —
v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-231/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-346/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/48)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/51)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-231/01 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): El. Da Srl v Ministero delle       from the register of Case C-346/01: Commission of the
Finanze.                                                                European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


Avis juridique important

|

E2003P0003

Action brought on 18 September 2003 by Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Case E-3/03

Official Journal C 294 , 04/12/2003 P. 0012 - 0012

Action brought on 18 September 2003 by Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority - Case E-3/03(2003/C 294/07)An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 September 2003 by Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS, represented by Advokat Jan Magne Langseth and Advokat fullmektig Gro Bergeius Andersen, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Dronning Mauds gt. 11, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision dated 16 July 2003 in Case 140/03/COL; and2. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the Applicants' costs.The Applicants plead that the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision in Case 140/03/COL is characterised by inadequate statement of reasons, errors in assessment of fact, manifest errors of assessment and errors in applying the concept of State aid under the EEA Agreement, including, inter alia:- failure to follow the consultation procedure of Article 2 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,- application of Article 5(1) of Directive 92/82/EEC, which is not part of the EEA Agreement,- erroneously applying Article 61(1) EEA, and having determined that the Norwegian concession system for scheduled services amounts to State aid, applying Council Regulation 1191/69 as amended by Council Regulation 1893/91, and- failure to address Article 59 EEA.


title: Case C-398/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 3 July 2017 — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 3 July 2017 — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-398/17)
   (2017/C 300/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Profit Europe NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must [CN] subheading 7307 19 10 (1) be interpreted as including fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron which have the characteristics of the fittings at issue in the main proceedings, if it appears from their objective characteristics that their material is essentially different from malleable cast iron because the malleability of spheroidal graphite cast iron does not result from appropriate heat treatment and because the graphite in spheroidal graphite cast iron has a different shape to the graphite in malleable cast iron, namely, that of spheroidal graphite instead of temper carbon?

               2.

               Must [CN] subheading 7307 11 00 1 be interpreted as including fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron which have the characteristics of the fittings at issue in the main proceedings, if the objective characteristics of spheroidal graphite cast iron show that it substantially corresponds to the objective characteristics of non-malleable cast iron?

               3.

               Must the CN Explanatory Note to subheading 7307 19 10, which provides that malleable cast iron includes spheroidal graphite cast iron, be disregarded to the extent to which it provides that malleable cast iron includes spheroidal graphite cast iron, if it is established that spheroidal graphite cast iron is not malleable cast iron?

      (1)  See Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case C-384/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
1.11.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 264/23
Action brought on 10 September 2003 by the Com-                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                              Republic                                     —     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                                Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of
                           (Case C-381/03)
                                                                                the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment
                                                                                in commercial transactions (1) or, in any event, by failing
                          (2003/C 264/38)                                        to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the              —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 Septem-
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Banks and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The time allowed for transposing the directive expired on
                                                                           8 August 2002.
—     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 2001/53/EC of 10 July 2001                      (1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.
      amending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equip-
      ment (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the
      same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 12 September 2003 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities against the Federal
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   Republic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-386/03)
The time-limit for transposing the directive expired on 17 Feb-
ruary 2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/40)
(1) OJ L 204 of 28.7.2001, p. 1.
                                                                           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 12 September 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and
                                                                           M. Niejahr of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
Action brought on 12 September 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the                            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                         Kingdom of Spain                                  the Court should:
                           (Case C-384/03)                                 1.    declare that by adopting measures in Paragraphs 8(2) and
                                                                                9(3) of the Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungsdienste
                                                                                auf Flugplätzen (German Regulation concerning
                          (2003/C 264/39)                                        groundhandling services at airports) of 10 December
                                                                                1997 which are not compatible with Articles 16 and 18
                                                                                of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on
                                                                                access to the groundhandling market at Community
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        airports (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 Sep-                      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
tember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by D. Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an                   2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               of the proceedings.


title: Case C-34/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 24 January 2014  — A v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 24 January 2014 — A v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg
   (Case C-34/14)
   2014/C 194/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Nürnberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (2) of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, (3) valid as a whole in so far as they were not annulled by the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 February 2012 and 15 November 2012 in Cases C-49/10 P and C-247/10 P?

               2.

               In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the negative, but the abovementioned regulations are not invalid as a whole:

                           (a)

                           In relation to which exporters and producers in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and in Vietnam, from which the applicant purchased goods in the period from 2006 to 2011, are Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, invalid?

                           (b)

                           Does a declaration that the abovementioned regulations are invalid in whole or in part constitute unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 236(2) of the Customs Code (CCC)?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 1 April 1998 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-52/98)

text:
16.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/13
Action brought on 1 April 1998 by the Netherlands                  rules for imports of rice originating in the ACP countries
Antilles against the Commission of the European                    or the OCT pursuant to Article 108a of the OCT
                        Communities                                Decision.
                      (Case T-52/98)
                       (98/C 151/24)                               The rice implementation Regulation is intended to secure
                                                                   the limitation by the Community of imports of rice
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                      originating, in particular, in the Netherlands Antilles.
                                                                   According to the Netherlands Antilles, the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                   has restricted trade between the Netherlands Antilles and
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  the Community, contrary to Community law. The
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1998               application also includes a claim that the legal
by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. Bos and M.          infringements complained of should not be repeated in the
Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                future. Lastly, the rice implementation Regulation imposes
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11             serious restrictions on an important sector of the
rue Goethe.                                                        Netherlands Antilles economy, namely the sugar refineries.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The pleas in law advanced in opposition to the contested
                                                                   Regulation allege lack of competence, infringement of
                                                                   essential procedural requirements and infringement of the
1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2603/97 of
                                                                   Treaty or of rules for the implementation thereof and/or
    16 December 1997 laying down the detailed
                                                                   breach of general principles of Community law, in
    implementing rules for imports of rice originating in
                                                                   particular: illegality of Article 101(1) of the OCT
    the ACP countries or the overseas countries and
                                                                   Decision, illegality of the origin rules contained in Title I
    territories (OCT) (OJ L 351, 23.12.1997, p. 22);
                                                                   of Annex II to the OCT Decision, illegality of the
                                                                   amending Decision on which the rice implementation
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.                          Regulation is based, infringement of Article 234 of the
                                                                   OCT Decision, infringement of Article 133(1) of the
                                                                   Treaty, infringement of Article 132(1) of the Treaty in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   conjunction with Article 102 of the OCT Decision,
                                                                   infringement of Article XIII of GATT 1994 and of the
The applicant seeks annulment of the rice implementation           WTO Agreement on import licensing procedures and
Regulation, which lays down the detailed implementing              infringement of Article 228(7) of the Treaty.


title: Action brought on 15 February 1995 by Antonio B. De Menezes against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-29/95)

text:
8 . 4 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 87/17
Action brought on 15 February 1995 by Antonio B. De                 — order the defendant to pay the costs'.
Menezes against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        (Case T-29/95 )
                          (95/C 87/36                               The action is directed against the decision removing the
                                                                    applicant from his post, adopted following disciplinary
               (Language of the case: French)                       proceedings, on the ground that he colluded, as one of the
                                                                    persons marking the written papers in open competition
                                                                    EUR/B/21 , with two of the candidates and had knowledge
An action against the Commission of the European                    of the model answers .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 February
1995 by Antonio B. De Menezes, residing in Brussels,                In support of his action, the applicant pleads, first, an
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels                infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on
Bar.                                                                Human Rights. He considers that the preliminary
                                                                    administrative inquiry was not conducted in such a way as
                                                                    to ensure the necessary objectivity, dispassion and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         impartiality; he further maintains that the opinions
                                                                    delivered by the Disciplinary Board and the contested
— declare the action admissible and well-founded,
                                                                    decision removing him from his post were not adopted
                                                                    within the reasonable period referred to in the
— consequently, annul the decision rejecting _ the
                                                                    aforementioned Article and that the time limits laid down by
     applicant's application for the vacant post COM/030/94
     of Director in Directorate A — Information and                 the first and third paragraphs of Article 7 of Annex IX to the
                                                                    Staff Regulations were not complied with.
     Communication Strategy (DG X/A), and the resulting
     decision to appoint another candidate to that post,
                                                                    The applicant pleads, second, a breach of his right to a fair
— order the. defendant to pay all the costs .                       hearing, in that the file produced to the Disciplinary Board
                                                                    and to the appointing authority was not communicated to
                                                                    him in its entirety.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Grade A 3 official assigned to ECHO                The applicant maintains, third, that the disciplinary
( European Community Humanitarian Office ), contests the            measure taken against him is unlawful, inasmuch as the
rejection of his application for the post of Director of            appointing authority did not prove the matters alleged
Directorate    A   —     Information    and   Communication         against him.
Strategy.
                                                                    He further states that the official nominated by the
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case          appointing authority to conduct the preliminary inquiry
T-27/95 .                                                           prior to the referral of the matter to the Disciplinary Board,
                                                                    and the appointing authority itself, uttered threats against
                                                                    him, and that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by an
                                                                    abuse of power.
                                                                    Lastly, the applicant pleads a manifest error of assessment,
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Philippe Guebels              disregard of the principle of proportionality and breach of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                the obligation to provide a statement of reasons laid down
                                                                    by Article 25 of the Staff Regulations .
                        (Case T-40/95 )
                          ( 95/C 87/37
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Andrew Macrae
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                 Moat against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
1995 by Philippe Guebels, residing in Arlon (Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                                       (Case T-41/95 )
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                       ( 95/C 87/38 )
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Commission of 18 January                Communities was brought before the Court of First
     1995 ,                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 17 February


title: Case T-290/14: Action brought on 29 April 2014  — Portnov v Council

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/34

         Action brought on 29 April 2014 — Portnov v Council
   (Case T-290/14)
   2014/C 194/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Andriy Portnov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare Mr Andriy Portnov’s action admissible;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      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 an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by the fundamental principles of European law, set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons for the contested acts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the criterion concerning penalties defined in Article 1 of Decision No 2014/119/CFSP and in paragraph 4 of the recital in the preamble to Regulation (EU) No 208/2014.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact, in so far as Mr Portnov, at the date of adoption of the contested acts, was not subject to criminal investigation in Ukraine for acts such as those referred to against him by the Council.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to respect for property, a fundamental principle of Community law protected by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


title: Case T-366/09: Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Insula v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/53

         Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-366/09)
   2009/C 282/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 114 996,82 is unfounded and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 114 996,82;

               —

               declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 253 617,08 is well-founded in part and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 174 044,85;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 146 261,06;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 573 273,42;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the Court to declare that the debit notes by which the Commission demands, following a report from OLAF, recovery of advances paid to the applicant do not comply with the clauses of the various contracts concluded in respect of projects under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, environment and sustainable development and under the ALTENER II programme.
   The pleas and main arguments raised by the applicant are essentially identical to those raised in Case T-246/09 Insula v Commission. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 193, p. 30.


title: Case T-368/07: Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Lithuania v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/35

         Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Lithuania v Commission

   (Case T-368/07)
   (2007/C 283/64)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare Commission Decision C(2007) 3407 final of 13 July 2007 (1) to be invalid;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the contested decision, of which it was notified on 16 July 2007, is unlawful and sets out the following grounds in law:
   1.   The Commission exceeded its powers.
   The applicant submits that, in taking a unilateral decision in regard to the definitive content of Lithuania's national allocation plan, the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Directive 2003/87/EC inasmuch as, while the provisions of that directive empower the Commission to assess the national allocation plans prepared by the Member States, they do not confer powers on it to determine total quantities of pollution emission allowances while overlooking entirely the national allocation plans prepared and submitted by the Member States.
   2.   Breach of European Community law.

               2.1.

                  Failure to have regard for the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC: by deciding, in the contested decision, on a national level for emissions over the period 2008 to 2012 which is lower than that required in the light of the obligations assumed by Lithuania pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Commission failed to have regard for the actual objectives of Directive 2003/87 as an effective instrument, from the economic point of view, for giving effect to the obligations assumed by the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in respect of greenhouse gas emissions.

               2.2.

                  Infringement of the principles of sound administration and genuine cooperation: the contested decision infringes the principles of sound administration and genuine cooperation inasmuch as the Commission, having disregarded the assessment made when the national Lithuanian allocation plan was being prepared and having essentially failed to consult with Lithuania, carried out a separate assessment based on its own selected methodology for the purpose of determining the maximum quantity of pollution emission allowances.

               2.3.

                  Breach of the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC and infringement of the principle of legal certainty: the contested decision breaches Articles 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87 inasmuch as, in disregard of the figures submitted in the Lithuanian national allocation plan, and rejecting the method of calculation applied by Lithuania as being inappropriate, the Commission relied exclusively and solely on the figures obtained through application of the method which it itself had selected for the purpose of determining the maximum quantity of pollution emission allowances to be allocated. Moreover, in applying that methodology, of which Lithuania knew nothing in advance, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty.

               2.4.

                  Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: the contested decision infringes the principle of non-discrimination inasmuch as the Commission, having applied its own selected method for determining the maximum quantity of pollution emission allowances, failed to have regard to the specific situation of Lithuania. The decision has also resulted in situations which are essentially different being treated in the same way.

               2.5.

                  Non-compliance with Article 9(1) and (3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and with the fourth criterion in Annex III to that directive: the contested decision is in breach of the obligation contained in Article 9 of Directive 2003/87 and based on the criteria listed in Annex III thereto, inasmuch as it fails, without reason, to take account of the fourth criterion in that annex and of the need in Lithuania to increase electricity generation in plants burning fossil fuel as a result of the undertaking given to shut down the Ignalina atomic power station by 2009.

         3.   Breach of essential procedural requirements under European Community legislation.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted in a manner which infringed essential procedural requirements inasmuch as, first, the Commission breached the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC by essentially refusing, in the contested decision, to review Decision C(2006) 5613 final, and second, the contested decision is inappropriately and inadequately reasoned and consequently the requirements set out in Article 253 EC and Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 have been breached. Furthermore, the Commission failed to comply with the procedural requirement in that directive relating to the duration of the assessment.
   4.   Manifest misappraisal.
   In the opinion of the applicant, when it examined Lithuania's amended national allocation plan, the Commission, first, failed to take account of the specific and objective circumstances which were stressed by Lithuania and which led to the level of pollution emissions which arose, and, second, applied an inappropriate method of calculation and based itself on inaccurate data, which led to the fixing of an incorrect maximum quantity of pollution emission allowances granted to Lithuania.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 13 July 2007 on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Lithuania under Article 3(3) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5613 (final) on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Lithuania under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and the Council.


title: Case T-15/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Simet v Commission (State Aid — retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities — Interregional coach transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Maintenance of a public service obligation — Grant of compensation — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Simet v Commission
   (Case T-15/14) (1)

   ((State Aid - retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities - Interregional coach transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Maintenance of a public service obligation - Grant of compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69))
   (2016/C 136/40)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Simet SpA (Rossano Calabro, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia, C. Varrone and P. Clarizia, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul Commission Decision 2014/201/EU of 2 October 2013 on compensation to be paid to SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 (state aid measure SA.33037 (2012/C) — Italy) (OJ 2014 L 114, p. 67).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Simet SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/23

         Removal from the register of Case C-11/03 (1)

   (2005/C 57/38)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 25 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-11/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Boss Pharma NV v Belgische Staat.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.


title: Case C-95/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/19

         Action brought on 21 February 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-95/12)
   2012/C 118/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-8995 regarding the incompatibility with European Union law of provisions of the VW-Gesetz, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to meet its obligations under Article 260(2) TFEU;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to make a daily penalty payment in the amount of EUR 282 725,10 and a lump sum daily payment of EUR 31 114,72, payable to the own resources account of the European Union;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany was delivered on 23 October 2007. In that case, the Commission essentially submitted that three provisions of the VW-Gesetz could deter direct investment and thus restricted the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC in that they (i), in derogation from the general law, capped the voting rights of every shareholder at 20 % of Volkswagen’s share capital, (ii) required a majority of over 80 % of the shares represented for resolutions of the general assembly, which, according to the general law, require only a majority of 75 % and (iii) allowed, in derogation from the general law, the Federal State and the Land of Lower Saxony each to appoint two representatives to Volkswagen’s supervisory board.
   It transpires from the judgment of the Court of Justice referred to above that each of the three of the provisions of the VW-Gesetz complained of, taken individually, was found to infringe the free movement of capital.
   The law adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany, which, in the latter’s opinion, has transposed the judgment of the Court of Justice, still requires, however, a majority of over 80 % of the shares represented for resolutions of the general assembly of the Volkswagen AG, which, according to the Aktiengesetz (German company law), require only a majority of 75 %. The Federal Republic of Germany justifies this with reference to the operative part of the judgment in Case C-112/05, pursuant to which that provision only constitutes a legal infringement when taken in conjunction with the other two provisions. Taken individually, however, that provision does not constitute an infringement of the free movement of capital.
   In the Commission’s view, the wording of the operative part of the judgment does not rule out the unlawfulness of the three contested provisions, taken individually. When implementing a judgment, it is not just the operative part thereof which needs to be taken into account, but also the grounds for the decision. In the context of the present case, it appears particularly far-fetched on the part of the Federal Republic of Germany to try to justify its failure to fully implement the judgment of the Court of Justice exclusively on the basis of the three words ‘in conjunction with’ in the operative part of the judgment. Such an interpretation does not only ignore the overall grounds for the judgment, but also the case-law of the Court of Justice on so-called ‘Golden Shares’.
   Accordingly, the Commission regards itself once again as required to bring the case before the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 260(2) TFEU. The amount of the financial sanctions was determined on the basis of the Commission’s communication of 1 September 2011 on the updating of data for the calculation of lump sum and penalty payments. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 12, p. 1


title: Case C-230/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications — Single European emergency call number — Caller location — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/5

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-230/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Single European emergency call number - Caller location - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2009/C 69/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ L 108, p. 51)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by not making, for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-38/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014  — Pedro Group v OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PEDRO — Earlier Community figurative mark Pedro del Hierro — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014 — Pedro Group v OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)
   (Case T-38/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PEDRO - Earlier Community figurative mark Pedro del Hierro - Partial refusal to register - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 194/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Vuijst and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Cortefiel, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by H. Mosback, P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2012 (Case R 271/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cortefiel, SA, and Pedro Group Pte Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pedro Group Pte Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-312/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014  — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/36

         Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission
   (Case T-312/14)
   2014/C 194/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca (Federcoopesca) (Rome, Italy); Associazione Lega Pesca (Rome); and AGCI AGR IT AL (Rome) (represented by: L. Caroli and S. Ventura, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2013) 8635 final of 6 December 2013 introducing an action plan to rectify shortcomings in the Italian fisheries control system (‘the contested decision’) and, specifically, paragraphs 13, 15, 16 and 17 of the action plan appended thereto;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision is intended to rectify the shortcomings observed in the Italian authorities’ implementation of the rules of the common fisheries policy (‘CFP’).
   The applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to provide a statement of reasons or failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this connection that the contested decision was adopted in order to deal with certain irregularities detected in connection with the implementation of certain CFP rules. However, that decision does not provide any indication as to the nature of those irregularities, thus making it impossible to identify the logical process which led to its adoption. Such invalidity is all the more serious since the measures introduced by the contested decision tend to derogate from previous EU legislation.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the Treaties and of the rules relating to their implementation.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this connection that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of the Treaties and of Article 102(4) of Regulation No 1224/2009, and by a lack of competence. It is not designed to strengthen the controls system, but introduces new obligations; not only are those obligations not laid down in the primary legislation, they are even contrary to that legislation.

               3.

               Third plea in law: breach of the principles of non-discrimination, reasonableness and proportionality.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this connection that the contested decision is in breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, in so far as it establishes new, weightier obligations for Italian fishermen. Next, the measures set out therein clearly have no reasonable correlation to the objective pursued and are inherently unreasonable and disproportionate, since it is not possible in practice to identify how the obligations imposed on the fishermen help to achieve the objective of the contested decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: unlawfulness of the serious infringements system and, in particular, infringement of Article 92 of Regulation No 1224/2009 and breach of the principle that penalties should be gradated and proportionate.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this connection that, contrary to Regulation No 1224/2009, which establishes a gradated penalty system, the contested decision requires the automatic suspension of fishing permits in the event of a serious infringement and the definitive withdrawal of such permits in the event of repeated infringements. The contested decision therefore replaces the provisions of the regulation with a different and much more punitive system of automatic and irrevocable penalties. Furthermore, the penalty system imposed by the action plan appears to be in serious breach of the principle that penalties should be gradated, the principle that such penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement and the principle that penalties should be applied to the offender alone, since the person holding the permit is penalised regardless of the identity of the person who has actually committed the offence.


title: Case T-236/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2009 — HPA v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2009 — HPA v Commission
   (Case T-236/08) (1)

   2009/C 90/63

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-108/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-Reino against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision refusing payment to the applicant of the daily                  Trade Mark concerned:         ‘STREAMSERVE’ — Application
subsistence allowance and of the second part of an installation                                        No 198398.
allowance for his daughter upon his being transferred to
Brussels.                                                                Product or service:           Computer software and hardware
                                                                                (class numbers 9 and 16 of the
The applicant states in that regard that, having previously been                                       Nice classification).
transferred to Luxembourg, he was then required, in the
context of a new posting, once again to transfer his residence           Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the
and place of work to Brussels.                                           before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                         Appeal:
In support of his claims, he argues that he is in his view
entitled to request that he be paid the daily subsistence                Pleas in law relied on:       — Infringement of Article 7
allowance and an installation allowance, to which any unmar-                                               (1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No
ried official with an officially recognised dependent child is                                             40/94.
automatically entitled. As regards the installation allowance,
this is intended to compensate for the expenses and difficulties                                       — Breach of the principle of non-
occasioned by the need to move house and settle in to a new                                                discrimination.
residence.
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve North
America Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                         Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
                         (Case T-106/00)                                 Reino against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                         (2000/C 176/51)
                                                                                (Case T-108/00)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/52)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve
North America Inc., represented by Magnus Nedstrand and Ulf                                 (Language of the case: French)
Willquist of the Swedish Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the contested decision in so far as the Court finds              European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
    that the trade mark STREAMSERVE does not satisfy the                 Reino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont,
    conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council           of the Brussels Bar, and Marc-Albert Lucas and Michel
    Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                  Franchimont, of the Liège Bar.
    Community Trade Mark and remit the case back to the
    Examiner;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as
    it constitutes a sufficiently apparent breach of the principle
    of non-discrimination and remit the case back to the                 — annul or declare illegal and/or defective the decisions,
    Examiner;                                                                failures to adopt measures required under the Staff Regu-
                                                                             lations or straightforward measures forming the subject-
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.                          matter of the proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-                 Action brought on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
    sation for the non-material damage suffered by him and             NV against the Commission of the European Communities
    for the harm done to his career, in a sum equivalent to that
    provided for by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                                (Case T-110/00)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 176/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Between 1992 and 1996 the applicant was the Director of the
European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), in which
certain serious malpractices were discovered following an              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
investigation carried out by UCLAF in 1998. On 14 July                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 the Commission decided not to pursue the disciplinary             European Communities on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
proceedings brought against the applicant, and did not impose          NV, represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar,
any disciplinary measure on him. That decision was sub-                and M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with
sequently criticised in the press and was also, according to the       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
applicant, the subject of criticism by certain officials and           M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
members of the Community institutions. In bringing the
present action, the applicant complains that the Commission
has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide assistance, as          The applicant claims that the Court should:
required by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it has
unlawfully refrained from taking the appropriate measures to           (1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods admissible;
defend the applicant against unjustified accusations.
                                                                       (2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000
The applicant is seeking, in particular:                                   introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
                                                                           overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February                    with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
    2000, in which it expressed an opinion on the applicant’s
    activities as former Director of ECHO for the purposes of          (3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
    proceedings brought by the applicant before the German                 by Free Trade Foods as a result of the safeguard measure
    courts against a German weekly periodical;                             and that the parties should seek to reach agreement on the
                                                                           extent of the damage suffered by Free Trade Foods, and
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the Commission’s              order that, if no such agreement is reached within a time-
    failure to react following a press conference on 19 Nov-               limit to be specified by the Court, the proceedings are to
    ember 1999, in the course of which the Director of OLAF                continue with a view to determining the quantum of the
    called in question the decision adopted by the Commission              damage, and order the Community in any event to pay the
    in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;                 damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,
                                                                           alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
                                                                           deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            from the date of the application until payment in full;
    reaction by the Commission to an article published in a
    German daily newspaper, in which OLAF called in question
    the said decision of the Commission;                               (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February
    2000 refusing to authorise the applicant to speak at a
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
    meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on
    Budgetary Control;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 109 of the Council Decision of
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries
    appropriate reaction on the part of the Commission to                  and territories with the European Economic Com-
    certain draft reports prepared, and discussions held, within           munity (2);
    the Committee on Budgetary Control and at the time of
    the debates which took place in the plenary sessions of the        — infringement of the favourable treatment given in the
    Parliament on 11 and 13 April 2000.                                    Treaty (Articles 3(1)(s) and 183(1) EC) to OCT goods;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                           guards concluded within the framework of the WTO;


title: Case C-39/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesterets Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg by order of 8 February 2002 in the case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en W. de Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan and Willem de Boer

text:
4.5.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/25
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-               1.    Does a procedure to constitute a liability limitation fund
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 24 October 2001                      pursuant to an application by a shipowner under the
in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstel-                     Brussels Convention of 10 October 1957 constitute
lungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundes-                          proceedings within the meaning of Article 21 of the
                           stadt Bonn                                       1968 Brussels Convention (1) where it is evident from the
                                                                            application, where the relevant names are stated, who
                                                                            might be affected thereby as a potential injured party?
                         (Case C-36/02)
                                                                      2.    Is an order to constitute a liability limitation fund under
                                                                            the Netherlands procedural rules in force in 1986 a
                        (2002/C 109/40)                                     judgment within the meaning of Article 25 of the 1968
                                                                            Brussels Convention?
                                                                      3.    Can a limitation fund which was constituted on 27 May
                                                                            1987 by a Netherlands court pursuant to Netherlands
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      procedural rules then in force without prior service on an
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-                   affected creditor now be denied recognition in another
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 October 2001,                    Member State in relation to the creditor concerned
received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a                   pursuant to Article 27(2) of the 1968 Brussels Conven-
preliminary ruling in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und                    tion?
Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin
der Bundesstadt Bonn on the following question:                       4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, is the creditor
                                                                            concerned deprived of its right to rely on Article 27(2) by
Is it compatible with the provisions on freedom to provide                  virtue of the fact that in the Member State which
services and the free movement of goods contained in the                    constituted the limitation fund it raised the matter
Treaty establishing the European Community for a particular                 of jurisdiction before a higher court without having
commercial activity — in this case the operation of a so-                   previously objected to default of service?
called ‘laserdrome’ involving simulated killing action — to be
prohibited under national law because it offends against the
values enshrined in the Basic (Constitutional) Law?                   (1) 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of
                                                                          judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 204, 1975,
                                                                          p. 28) modified by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          with the adjustments made to them by the Convention on the
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the
                                                                          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
                                                                          adjustments made to them by the Convention on the accession of
                                                                          the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, 1989, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesterets
Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg by order of 8 February 2002 in
the case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en
W. de Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan
                     and Willem de Boer
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                      Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle
                         (Case C-39/02)                               Mistelbach by order of that Court of 29 January 2002 in
                                                                               the case of an appeal by Margareta Scherndl
                        (2002/C 109/41)                                                         (Case C-40/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Højesterets Anke- og
Kæremålsudvalg (Appeals and Objections Committee of the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Supreme Court) of 8 February 2002, received at the Court              European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
Registry on 13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the         tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle Mistelbach
case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en W. de              of 29 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan and Willem         14 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of an
de Boer on the following questions:                                   appeal by Margareta Scherndl on the following questions:


title: Case C-157/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Administración General del Estado (Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Prohibition of deducting tax due but not recovered in another Member State)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-157/10) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Prohibition of deducting tax due but not recovered in another Member State)
   2012/C 32/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Corporation tax — National legislation and convention on double taxation prohibiting the deduction of tax due but not recovered in other Member States for income obtained on their territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 67 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) do not preclude national rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of corporation tax and within the framework of provisions for the avoidance of double taxation, prohibit the deduction of amounts of tax due in other Member States of the European Union on income subject to corporation tax and obtained in their territory where those amounts, though due, are not paid by virtue of an exemption, a credit or any other tax benefit, in so far as those rules are not discriminatory as compared with the treatment applied to interest obtained in that Member State, it being for the national court to establish whether that is the case.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-233/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/6

         Action brought on 12 May 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-233/14)
   2014/C 245/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and C. Gheorghiu, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by restricting access to public transport passes with preferential fares for students who pursue their studies in the Netherlands to Netherlands students who are enrolled in private and public educational establishments in the Netherlands and to students from other Member States who are economically active or have obtained a permanent right of residence in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 TFEU (in conjunction with Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU), and Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               While Netherlands students can benefit from public transport passes for students (the OV-studentenkaart) (‘the student public transport pass’) with which they are able to travel for free or at a reduced fare on public transport in the Netherlands, students from other Member States who are not economically active in the Netherlands or have not obtained a permanent right of residence there must pay the full fare.

               2.

               The Commission is of the opinion that the Netherlands legislation results in direct discrimination based on nationality, given that EU citizens who are not Dutch are treated less favourably than Dutch persons. The Netherlands has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 TFEU in conjunction with Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU.

               3.

               Next, there is indirect discrimination based on nationality if a national measure, although worded in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of a much higher percentage of certain persons, unless that difference in treatment is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

               4.

               Since, in the context of the Erasmus programme, there are more foreign students studying in the Netherlands than Netherlands students, who have opted to pursue their complete course of study abroad, and since, instead of a student public transport pass, a monthly ‘portable funding for studies’ of EUR 89,13 (2013 rate) is granted to the latter group of students, it is only ultimately foreign students in Netherlands who receive no form of financial benefit or no advantage in the form of the student public transport pass. In the Commission’s submission, this constitutes an indirect form of discrimination on the basis of Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

               5.

               Since the Netherlands has thus far failed to adopt all measures to bring to an end the difference of treatment of which foreign students are the subject in relation to the possibility of claiming entitlement to the student public transport pass, the Commission concludes that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 TFEU (in conjunction with Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU), and Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC.

      (1)  Directive of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-208/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien (European citizenship — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Law of a Member State with constitutional status abolishing the nobility in that State — Surname of an adult, a national of that State, obtained by adoption in another Member State, in which that adult resides — Title of nobility and nobiliary particle forming part of the surname — Registration by the authorities of the first Member State in the register of civil status — Correction of the entry by the authorities on their own initiative — Removal of the title of nobility and nobiliary particle)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien
   (Case C-208/09) (1)

   (European citizenship - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Law of a Member State with constitutional status abolishing the nobility in that State - Surname of an adult, a national of that State, obtained by adoption in another Member State, in which that adult resides - Title of nobility and nobiliary particle forming part of the surname - Registration by the authorities of the first Member State in the register of civil status - Correction of the entry by the authorities on their own initiative - Removal of the title of nobility and nobiliary particle)
   2011/C 63/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein

      Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Art. 18 EC — Constitutional law of a Member State aimed at abolishing the nobility in that State and prohibiting its nationals from bearing foreign noble titles — Refusal of the authorities of that Member State to enter in the register of births a noble title and a noble particle forming part of a surname which an adult person, being a national of that State, acquired in another Member State, in which she resides, following her adoption by a national of that latter State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the authorities of a Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, from refusing to recognise all the elements of the surname of a national of that State, as determined in another Member State — in which that national resides — at the time of his or her adoption as an adult by a national of that other Member State, where that surname includes a title of nobility which is not permitted in the first Member State under its constitutional law, provided that the measures adopted by those authorities in that context are justified on public policy grounds, that is to say, they are necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to secure and are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.08.2009.


title: Case C-480/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/29

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-480/07)
   (2007/C 315/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and R.Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               to declare that, by failing to develop, approve and implement waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

               —

               to order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   It is apparent from a combined reading of Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59 that the Kingdom of Spain was required to adopt, before 28 December 2002, the provisions necessary to ensure the development and implementation of a suitable waste reception and handling plan for every Spanish port.
   It is evident from the information supplied up until that date by the Spanish authorities that waste reception and handling plans have been developed and implemented for all the ports of general interest owned by the State and the ports under the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Community of Galicia. By contrast, it is apparent from that information that such plans have not yet been developed and/or approved in respect of all the ports subject to the jurisdiction of one of the remaining coastal autonomous communities, namely, Catalonia, the Balearics, Valencia, Murcia, Andalusia, the Canaries, Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque country.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.


title: Case C-299/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad
   (Case C-299/13)
   (2013/C 226/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Isabelle Gielen

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Question referred

   Is Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital to be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion — prescribed by law — of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities, and, if so, can such a tax be justified on the basis of Article 6 of that directive?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.