title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case C-162/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/662/EEC - Veterinary checks - Failure to transpose)

text:
No C 77/2             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16 . 3 . 96
d'Appel, Bourges ( France ) and the Tribunal de Grande                    purposes, it cannot be regarded as a pharmaceutical
Instance ( Regional Court), Paris for a preliminary ruling in             product falling under that heading.
the criminal proceedings pending before those courts
against Patrick Colin attended by Distrithera SARL
( C-106/94 ) and Daniel Dupre attended by Laboratoires              (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 ; OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
Valda SA ( C-139/94 ) on the interpretation, in Case                ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 21 . 3 . 1985 , p . 13 .
C-106/94, of the Common Customs Tariff as regards the
classification of tonic beverages and throat pastilles and, in
Case C-139/94 , of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No
717/85 of 19 March 1985 on the classification of goods
within subheading 17.04 D I of the Common Customs
Tariff (2 ) and Chapter 30 of the Common Customs Tariff
and the Combined Nomenclature as regards the
classification of throat pastilles, the Court ( Fourth
Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray                                                 ( Fifth Chamber)
( Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate General :
D. Loutermann-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                                    of 14 December 1995
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in            in Case C-162/94: Commission of the European
which it ruled :                                                                       Communities v. Ireland ( 1 )
                                                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/662/EEC —
                                                                               Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)
1 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and                                          ( 96/C 77/03 )
    purpose, pastilles such as red Pulmoll pastilles fall under
    heading 17.04 of the Common Customs Tariff.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and            In Case C-162/94 : Commission of the European
    purpose, pastilles such as green Pulmoll pastilles fall         Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James
    under heading 17.04 of the Common Customs                       Macdonald Flett) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
    Tariff.                                                         application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
                                                                    force the laws , regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                    necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/662/EEC of
                                                                    11 December 1989 - concerning veterinary checks in
3 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and            intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the
    purpose, beverages such as Sangart mixture fall under           internal market ( OJ No L 395 , 1989, p. 13 ), Ireland has
    heading 22.09 of the Common Customs Tariff.                     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in
                                                                    particular Article 22 thereof, and under the Treaty
                                                                    establishing the European Community — the Court ( Fifth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
4 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and            President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
    purpose, beverages such as Quintonine fall under                C. Gulmann, L. Sevon and M Wathelet, Judges : C. O. Lenz,
    heading 22.09 of the Common Customs Tariff.                     Advocate General; R. Grass , Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:
5 . Regulation (EEC) No 71 7/85 of 1 9 March 1 985 on the           1 . Declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,
    classification of goods within subheading 17.04 D I of                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    the Common Customs Tariff may not be interpreted as                   comply with Council Directive 89/662/EEC of
    referring to goods whose composition (percentage by                   11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in
    weight) is different from that indicated in Article I of              intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of
    that Regulation.                                                      the internal market, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 22 of that Directive.
6 . Heading 30.03 of the CCT, which covers medicaments,
                                                                    2 . Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    is to be interpreted as including a product consisting of
    sugar, but above all of active flavouring agents with
    medicinal properties in such a proportion that it is used       0 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
    only for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes.
    Nevertheless, where the proportion offlavouring agents
    in the composition of each product does not enable the
    product to be used only for therapeutic or prophylactic


title: Case C-219/06: Order of the President of the Court of 7 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-219/06) (1)

   (2007/C 42/39)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case F-125/12: Action brought on 3 November 2012 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/72

         Action brought on 3 November 2012 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-125/12)
   2013/C 26/149
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s 2011 appraisal report and of the decision imposing the objectives, and application for damages

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the appraisal report concerning the applicant for 2011 in the version of 1 February 2012 and the e-mails of the defendant of 2 February 2012 at 14:51 and of 2 February 2012 at 15:49, in so far as OHIM’s imposition on the applicant of objectives to be achieved for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 is contained therein;

               —

               order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage suffered by him;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-152/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2008 — Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD and Nihat Kahveci v Consejo Superior de Deportes and Real Federación Española de Fútbol

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2008 — Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD and Nihat Kahveci v Consejo Superior de Deportes and Real Federación Española de Fútbol
   (Case C-152/08)
   (2008/C 171/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD and Nihat Kahveci

      Defendants: Consejo Superior de Deportes and Real Federación Española de Fútbol
   Question referred
   Does Article 37 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement (1), signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 and approved by Council Decision 64/732/EEC, and its Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 (2), preclude a sporting federation from applying a rule to a professional sportsman of Turkish nationality, lawfully employed by a Spanish football club, as in the main proceedings, under which clubs may use only a limited number of players from non-member States not belonging to the European Economic Area in national competitions?

      (1)  Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1964 217, p. 3685).

      (2)  Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ L 293, p. 1).


title: Case C-200/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Susanne de Winder v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Susanne de Winder v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-200/17)
   (2017/C 231/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Susanne de Winder

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/9, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-518/12: Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Spirlea v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Spirlea v Commission
   (Case T-518/12)
   2013/C 32/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy) and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               accept the present application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               declare the action to be founded and, accordingly, that the defendant committed significant procedural errors and made other substantive errors of law;

               —

               on that basis, annul the Commission’s decision of 27 September 2012 to bring an end to EU pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO (Ref. Ares [2012] 1135073);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: setting up an EU pilot procedure without any legal basis (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU)

                           —

                           In the context of this plea, the applicants submit that the launching of an EU pilot procedure amounts to an additional procedural requirement to Article 258 TFEU. This procedural requirement — for which the Commission does not have any power or delegated power under the Treaties — has been used contrary to the rule of law and in a non-transparent procedure which, moreover, undermines the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in Article 258 TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the Commission communication of 20 March 2002 to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law. (1)

                           —

                           In this regard, the applicants submit that the Commission arbitrarily bypassed its communication on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law and, without offering any alternative, transferred the applicants’ complaints to the EU pilot procedure, the rules of which are not accessible to the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons

                           —

                           In this context, they complain that the Commission’s grounds do not contain any clarification of the facts in relation to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 (2) and do not address the specific legal complaints made by the applicants in connection with EU law.

      (1)  OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).


title: Case T-11/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Ne bis in idem principle — Fines — Actual impact on the market — Size of the relevant market — Duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission
   (Case T-11/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
   2010/C 179/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany); Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH (Amstetten, Austria); and Austria Buntmetall AG (Enzesfeld, Austria); (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Huber and G. Kimberley, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

               3.

               Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-45/95)

text:
No C 101 /18          EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 4 . 95
represented by Karen Dyekj aer-Hansen, of the Copenhagen                     purpose in this was to prevent incursions by the other
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        members on the applicant's own market.
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                             The applicant also argues that the Decision breaches
                                                                             essential procedural requirements which must be complied
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  with when a fine is imposed under Regulation No 17/62 of
                                                                             the Council and that it is also contrary to Article 190 of the
1 , annul Articles 1 , 2, 4 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) (a ), 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 and 12 of   EC Treaty in so far as it is inadequately reasoned.
     the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
     Treaty (IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) in so far as
     those articles relate to the applicant;
                                                                             Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Alsen-Breitenburg
2, in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on the                         Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH against the Commission of
     applicant;                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-45/95 )
3 , in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
     applicant;                                                                                ( 95/C 101/37)
4, order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
In support of its pleas in law, the applicant submits that it                1995 by Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH
has not infringed Article 85 of the EC Treaty. The Decision                  of Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented
is thus at variance with that provision and with Articles 3                  by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin Klusmann,
and 15 of Regulation No 17/62 of the Council in so far as                    Rechtsanwàlte, Diisseldorf, with an address for service in
it involves an incorrect application of law and draws                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62
inaccurate conclusions from the evidence. The applicant                      Avenue Guillaume .
submits in this regard that it did not participate in an
agreement designed to ensure non-transhipment to home                      . The applicant claims that the Court should:
markets and to regulate cement transfers from one country
to another.                                                                  1 , annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
                                                                                30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 —
The applicant acknowledges that it participated in three                           Cement), served on the applicant on 13 December 1994
meetings during the period 1983 to 1984 but states that no                         and 3 February 1995 , in so far as it concerns the
agreement was concluded at those meetings . Nor can it be                          applicant;
regarded as proved that the applicant exchanged market                             in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
information at those meetings. Even if the applicant's silent                      applicant to a reasonable sum corresponding to the real
presence were to be regarded as blameworthy, that                                  significance of the influence on competition forming the
participation is one single event which took place long                            subject-matter of the proceeding, the period of time to
before the limitation period laid down in Regulation ( EEC )                       which the objections regarding the ECEC relate and the
No 2988/74 and before the applicant company was                                    involvement of the applicant in the matter;
formed .
                                                                             2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicant routinely sent non-contemporaneous
information on prices approved by the Danish Monopoly                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Control Authorities to Cembureau — The European
Cement Association and obtained processed information                        The applicant complains from a procedural standpoint that
from it. This is normal practice within the sector and the                   the defendant:
information was not submitted or received with the
intention or request that it should affect the conduct of other              (a ) permanently impaired the applicant's ability to
cement producers . In particular, there is no basis for the                         exonerate itself, by failing to effect complete service of
assumption that this information bore any relation to the                           the statement of objections and by failing to formulate
meetings referred to in Article 1 of the Decision.                                  the same with adequate precision ( first head of
                                                                                claim );
It cannot be regarded as established that the applicant took                 ( b ) seriously impeded the applicant's defence during the
part in an agreement to establish a European Task Force or                          administrative procedure and following the issue of the
that it participated in any arrangement connected with the                          decision by allowing only limited inspection of the
Italian construction company Calcestruzzi.                                          documentation in the file (second head of claim );
The applicant does not deny having been a member of the                      (c ) rendered it more difficult to reply to the statement of
European Cement Export Committee but does deny that its                             objections within the prescribed period by failing to
 ---pagebreak--- 22. 4. 95            [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 101 / 19
      provide translations of documentary evidence written           Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Nordcement
      in foreign languages, thereby frustrating the submission       Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European
      by the applicant of a comprehensive response (third                                      Communities
      head of claim);                                                                        (Case T-46/95 )
( d ) rendered it impossible, in overall terms, for the                                       ( 95/C 101/38 )
      applicant to submit a defence commensurate with the
      scope of the matters covered by the proceeding, by                            (Language of the case: German)
      prescribing unreasonably short periods for the delivery
      of its response and for inspection of the file ( fourth head
      of claim );                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
( e ) provided a statement of reasons for he decision which          Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      was inadequate and contradictory, particularly as              1995 by Nordcement Aktiengesellschaft of Hanover,
      regards discrepancies between the operative part of the        represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin
      decision and the reasons therefor, as well as an absence       Klusmann, Rechtsanwâlte, Diisseldorf, with an address for
      of reasons in support of individual objections ( fifth         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,
      head of claim), and — consequently —                           62 Avenue Guillaume .
( f) made findings of fault and determined the fine to be
      imposed in a manner which, from a formal standpoint            The applicant claims that the Court should :
      alone, fell far short of the requirements laid down by
      Article 190 of the EC Treaty regarding the giving              1 . annul in its entirety the Decision of the Commission of
      of reasons for individual decisions ( sixth head of                 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 —
      claim).                                                             Cement ), served on the applicant on 13 December 1994
                                                                          and 3 February 1995 , in so far as it concerns the
By reason of those procedural infringements, the                          applicant,
Commission breached the principles of equality of arms in
the proceeding, of entitlement to a fair hearing and of                   in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
equitable procedure and equality of treatment.                            applicant to a reasonable sum corresponding to the real
Consequently, the decision was reached in an unlawful                     significance of the influence on competition forming the
manner and should thus be annulled .                                      subject-matter of the proceeding, the period of time to
                                                                          which the objections regarding the ECEC relate and the
As regards the substance of the matter, the applicant                     involvement of the applicant in the matter;
complains that the Commission:
(a ) based its legal subsumptions on incorrect and unproven          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
      suppositions, in that it investigated the actual
      circumstances in the cement markets in a fragmentary           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manner and drew erroneous and arbitrary conclusions
      from the facts investigated ( seventh head of claim );         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                     in Case T-45/95 Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke
( b ) with particular regard to the ECEC, failed to recognize,       GmbH v . Commission .
      from the standpoint of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
      the absence of elements constituting an infringement in
      relation to that organization and its modus operandi
      ( eighth head of claim);
(c) assumed the existence of links between the ECEC and
      the EPC, organizations which were the subject of               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Terres Rouges
      complaints, whereas no such links in fact existed ( ninth      Consultant and others against the Commission of the
      head of claim);                                                                   European Communities
( d ) in assuming the existence of a single continuing                                       (Case T-47/95 )
      infringement, bracketed together, in a grossly unlawful                                 ( 95/C 101/39 )
      manner, different sets of facts, and conjectured
      participation in the alleged Cembureau agreement
      (tenth head of claim );
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(e ) without due authority, issued directions in Article 8           An action against the Commission of the European
      of the decision which were inadequately defined and            Communities was brought before the Court of First
      which were impermissible regarding the future                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      exchange of information (eleventh head of claim).              1 995 by Terres Rouges Consultant, the head office of which
Consequently, the decision constitutes an infringement of            is in Paris, Cobana Import, the head office of which is at
                                                                     Rungis ( France), and SIPEV NV, the head office of which is
the Treaty and of higher-ranking rules of Community law,
and should for that reason be annulled .                             in Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Michel Aurillac, of
                                                                     the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine.


title: Case C-61/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Alba Forni v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Alba Forni v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-61/13)
   2013/C 141/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alba Forni

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the regulatory framework for the schools sector [which allows for a succession of fixed-term contracts, without interruption of continuity, with the same teacher for an indeterminate number of times, including in order to address permanent staffing needs] constitute an equivalent measure within the meaning of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC? (1)

               2.

               When is an employment relationship to be regarded as being for the public service of the ‘State’, for the purposes of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC and, in particular, within the meaning of the expression ‘specific sectors and/or categories of workers’, and thus capable of justifying results that are different from those which ensue from employment relationships in the private sector?

               3.

               Having regard to the explanations contained in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of employment conditions contained in Clause 4 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC also include the consequences of the unlawful interruption of an employment relationship? If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for in national law for the unlawful interruption of fixed-term employment relationships and for the unlawful interruption of employment relationships of indefinite duration justifiable under Clause 4?

               4.

               By virtue of the principle of sincere cooperation, is a State precluded from presenting to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a request for a preliminary ruling a deliberately untrue description of a national legislative framework and are the national courts obliged, in the absence of any alternative interpretation of national law that also satisfies the obligations deriving from membership of the European Union to the same degree, to interpret, where possible, national law in accordance with the interpretation given by the State?

               5.

               Is a statement of the circumstances in which a fixed-term employment contract may be converted into a permanent contract one of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship contemplated by Directive 91/533/EEC, (4) in particular by Article 2(1) and (2)(e) thereof?

               6.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is a retroactive amendment to the legislative framework which does not guarantee that employees can claim the rights conferred on them by the directive, that is to say, that the conditions of employment specified in the document under which they were recruited will be observed, contrary to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/533/EEC and to the objectives of that directive, in particular those mentioned in the second recital of the preamble thereto?

               7.

               Must the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force concerning legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, procedural equality, effective judicial protection, the right to an independent court or tribunal and, more generally, the right to due process, guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by Article 1.8 of the Treaty of Lisbon and as referred to by Article 46 TEU), read in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and with Articles 46, 47 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, as incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon, be interpreted as precluding, within the scope of Directive 1999/70/EC, the adoption by the Italian State, after a significant period of time (three and a half years), of a legislative provision such as Article 9 of Decree-Law No 70 of 13 May 2011, converted by way of Law No 106 of 12 July 2011, [which] added to Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 368/01 a paragraph 4a which is liable to alter the consequences of ongoing proceedings by directly placing at a disadvantage the worker and benefiting the State in its capacity as employer, and by eliminating the possibility conferred by the national legal system of penalising the abusive repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

      (4)  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).


title: Case C-25/08 P: Order of the Court of 13 November 2008 — Giuseppe Gargani v European Parliament (Appeal — Action brought by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament against the action of the President of the Parliament which led to the submission of observations in the name of the Parliament in a matter which related to a reference for a preliminary ruling — Time-limit for initiating proceedings)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/24

         Order of the Court of 13 November 2008 — Giuseppe Gargani v European Parliament
   (Case C-25/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action brought by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament against the ‘action’ of the President of the Parliament which led to the submission of observations in the name of the Parliament in a matter which related to a reference for a preliminary ruling - Time-limit for initiating proceedings)
   (2009/C 44/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Giuseppe Gargani (represented by: W. Rothley, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. Schoo and H. Krück, agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007, Gargani v Parliament (T-94/06), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action brought by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, seeking a declaration of unlawfulness in relation to the decision of the President of the European Parliament to submit written observations in the name of the Parliament, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, contrary to the advice of the Commission of Legal Affairs, and his refusal to submit the issue to plenary
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Gargani is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-102/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/15

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission
   (Case T-102/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 8/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Velardo and L. Flynn, Agents, assisted by G. Faedo, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005, concerning a reduction of the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Decision C(97) 2199, of 27 July 1997, approving assistance from the ERDF for measures provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the region of Piedmont (Italy).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Investire Partecipazioni is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case T-301/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2008 — Guigard v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Non-renewal of a contract of employment financed by the EDF — Lack of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2008 — Guigard v Commission
   (Case T-301/05) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Non-renewal of a contract of employment financed by the EDF - Lack of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance)
   (2008/C 107/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Guigard (Paris, France) (represented initially by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, later by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glantz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, later by: F. Dintilhac and G. Boudot, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the Commission in regard to the non-renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical co-operation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund (EDF).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Philippe Guigard to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-111/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
   (Case C-111/09)
   2009/C 141/45
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Okresní Soud v Cheb

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group

      Defendant: Michal Bílas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as not authorising a court to review its international jurisdiction where the defendant partipates in the proceedings, even when the case is subject to the rules on compulsory jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules?

               2.

               Can the defendant, by the fact that he partipates in the proceedings, establish the international jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation even where the proceedings are otherwise subject to the rules of compulsory jurisdiction in Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules?

               3.

               If the answer to question (2) is in the negative, may the fact that the defendant participates in the proceedings before a court which otherwise under the Regulation does not have jurisdiction in a case concerning insurance, be regarded as an agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1


title: Case T-261/17: Action brought on 5 May 2017 — Bayer v EUIPO — UNI — Pharma (SALOSPIR)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/34

         Action brought on 5 May 2017 — Bayer v EUIPO — UNI — Pharma (SALOSPIR)
   (Case T-261/17)
   (2017/C 221/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UNI — Pharma Kleon Tsetis Pharmaceutical Laboratories Industrial and Commercial SA (Kifisia, Greece)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SALOSPIR’ — Application for registration No 12 351 458

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2017 in Case R 2444/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Uni-Pharma, if the latter makes use of its right to join the proceedings as an intervener, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-30/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/12

         Action brought on 18 January 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-30/16)
   (2016/C 090/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/126/EC, (1) since it has not fully transposed Article 4(1) and (3)(b), (4)(d), (f) and (h), Article 6(2) and Article 7(2)(b) of that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The relevant provisions were to be adopted and published not later than 19 January 2011 and applied as from 19 January 2013.

      (1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2001 in Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/35/EC — Training of seafarers — Failure to implement within prescribed period)

text:
1.9.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 245/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the taxable amount for the supply of a bonus in kind constituting
                                                                             consideration for the introduction of a new customer includes, besides
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    the purchase price of that bonus, the costs of delivery, when they are
                                                                             paid by the supplier of the bonus.
                            of 3 July 2001
                                                                             (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
in case C-380/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt
                          Wiedenbrück (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
         amoumt — Delivery costs of bonuses in kind)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2001/C 245/01)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                        of 3 July 2001
                                                                             in Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
In Case C-380/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                             Directive 98/35/EC — Training of seafarers — Failure to
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                                implement within prescribed period)
(Federal Finance Court, Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between
Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück — on the                                                         (2001/C 245/02)
interpretation of article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive
(77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                            (Language of the case: French)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,                                in the European Court Reports)
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    In Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communities
3 July 2001, in which it has ruled:                                          (Agent: B. Mongin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
                                                                             initially P. Steinmetz, and subsequently J. Faltz) — application
Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of               for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added             provisions, including any penalties, necessary to comply with
tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that       Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/2                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              1.9.2001
Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of                       of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
seafarers (OJ 1998 L 172, p. 1), the Grand Duchy of                          Article 49 EC), Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under                        Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that directive — the Court                   composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of                       D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                       has made an order on 19 June 2001, in which it rules:
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2001, in which it:                                                           Public employment procurement offices are subject to the prohibition
                                                                             in Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), provided that
1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed    the application of that provision does not frustrate the specific
      period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,            function entrusted to them. A Member State which prohibits any
      including any penalties, necessary to comply with Council              activity of mediation and intervention between the seeking and
      Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending Directive                   offering of employment which is not carried on by those offices
      94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers, the            infringes Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC) if it
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations         creates a situation in which public employment procurement offices
      under Article 2 of that directive;                                     are necessarily put in a position where they contravene the provisions
                                                                             of Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case in particular where the
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                 following conditions are met:
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                   —      the public employment procurement offices are manifestly
                                                                                unable to satisfy demand on the labour market for the kind of
                                                                                activities concerned;
                                                                             —      the actual carrying on of employment procurement activities by
                                                                                private agencies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in
                                                                                force of provisions of law which prohibit those activities on pain
                                                                                of criminal and administrative penalties;
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             —      the procurement activities in question are to extend to the
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                           nationals or the territory of other Member States.
                          of 19 June 2001
                                                                             (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
in Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent):
Stéphane Monnier v Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Anke-
ren v Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV v Pascal Jacobs
         and Govan Sports NV v Dannie D’Hondt (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Activity of
     procuring employment for professional sportsmen)                        Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                             Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
                                                                             by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2001/C 245/03)                                    European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
                                                                             GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Case C-213/01 P)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (2001/C 245/04)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01: references to the Court                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court                  by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
of Appeal, Ghent), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the                  European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
proceedings pending before that court between Stéphane                       GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Monnier and Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Ankeren and                           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV and Pascal Jacobs, and                      European Communities on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Govan Sports NV and Dannie D’Hondt — on the interpretation                   Co. KG, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.


title: Case C-9/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Waypoint Aviation SA v État belge — SPF Finances (Freedom to provide services — Tax legislation — Tax credit on income from loans granted for the acquisition of assets used on national territory — Exclusion of assets for which the right to use is transferred to a third party established in another Member State)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Waypoint Aviation SA v État belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-9/11) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Tax legislation - Tax credit on income from loans granted for the acquisition of assets used on national territory - Exclusion of assets for which the right to use is transferred to a third party established in another Member State)
   2011/C 355/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Waypoint Aviation SA

      Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 10 EC (Article 4(3) EU) and Article 49 EC (Article 56 TFEU) — National legislation which grants a tax credit to the recipients of income from debt-claims or loans granted to a national coordination centre — Right to use assets acquired using borrowed funds by a resident company in the same group as that to which the coordination centre belongs — Exclusion of non-resident companies in the same group — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the grant of a tax credit on income from loans provided to certain companies for the acquisition of new assets used on the national territory subject to the condition that the right to use the asset is not transferred, by the company which acquired it through the loan conferring entitlement to the tax credit or by any other company in the same group, to third parties other than members of that group established in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case F-68/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 November 2014  — CY v ECB (Death of the applicant — Reopening of the oral procedure — Legal successor choosing not to resume the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 November 2014 — CY v ECB
   (Case F-68/13) (1)

   ((Death of the applicant - Reopening of the oral procedure - Legal successor choosing not to resume the proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
   (2014/C 448/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CY (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and F. Feyerbacher, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of the decision to close the administrative inquiry brought regarding psychological harassment allegedly suffered by the applicant and, secondly, of the inquiry report, and for damages to be granted in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no longer any need to rule on the action.

               2)

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 31.


title: Case T-425/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/16

         Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)
   (Case T-425/15)
   (2015/C 328/16)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

      Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

      Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community plant variety right at issue: Community variety EU 8536 ‘SEIMORA’

      Procedure before the CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A003/2010

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and annul the plant variety right in Community variety SEIMORA with effect from 4 October 2005;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the CPVO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 48(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;

               —

               Infringement of Article 21(1) read in conjunction with Article 65 of Regulation No 2100/94.


title: Case C-262/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 July 2009 — Wienand Meilicke, Frau Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler v Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 July 2009 — Wienand Meilicke, Frau Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler v Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt
   (Case C-262/09)
   2009/C 267/46
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wienand Meilicke, Frau Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the free movement of capital under Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC, the principle of effectiveness and the principle of ‘effet utile’ preclude legislation — like Paragraph 36(2), second sentence, point 3 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax, ‘the EStG’) (in the version in force during the relevant years) — under which corporation tax amounting to three sevenths of the gross dividends is set off against the income tax, provided such dividends do not originate from distributions for which capital and reserves are deemed to have been used within the meaning of Paragraph 30(2)(1) of the Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on corporation tax, ‘the KStG’) (in the version in force during the relevant years), although the corporation tax charged on dividends received from a company resident in another EC country which was actually paid is in practice impossible to determine and could be higher?

               2.

               Do the free movement of capital under Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC, the principle of effectiveness and the principle of ‘effet utile’ preclude legislation — like Paragraph 36(2), second sentence, point 3, fourth sentence, (b) of the EStG (in the version in force in the relevant years) — under which credit for corporation tax requires the submission of a corporation tax certificate within the meaning of Paragraphs 44 et seq. of the KStG (in the version in force in the relevant years), which must contain, inter alia, the amount of corporation tax deductible and the composition of the payment under the various parts of the capital and reserves available for distribution on the basis of a special division of capital and reserves within the meaning of Paragraph 30 of the KStG (in the version in force in the relevant years), although it is in practice impossible to determine the foreign corporation tax actually paid which is to be set off and to provide the certificate in respect of foreign dividends?

               3.

               Does the free movement of capital under Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC require that where it is actually impossible to submit a corporation tax certificate within the meaning of Paragraph 44 of the KStG (in the version in force in the relevant years) and in the absence of being able to determine the corporation tax charged on the foreign dividends which was actually paid, the amount of the charge to corporation tax should be estimated and if appropriate at the same time indirect prior charges to corporation tax should be taken into account?

               4.

                           (a)

                           If the second question is answered in the negative and a corporation tax certificate is required:
                           Should the principle of effectiveness and the principle of ‘effet utile’ be understood as meaning that they preclude legislation — like the second sentence of Paragraph 175(2) of the Abgabenordnung (Tax Code, ‘AO’) in conjunction with Article 97(9)(3) of the Einführungsgesetz zur Abgabenordnung (Introductory law of the Tax Code, ‘EGAO’) — under which, from 29 October 2004, without any transitional period for the purposes of claiming credit for foreign corporation tax, the submission, inter alia, of a corporation tax certificate is no longer deemed to be an event with retroactive effect, as a result of which it is made procedurally impossible to set off foreign corporation tax where income tax assessments have become final?

                           (b)

                           If the second question is answered in the affirmative and no corporation tax certificate is required:
                           Should the free movement of capital under Article 56 EC, the principle of effectiveness and the principle of ‘effet utile’ be understood to preclude legislation — like Paragraph 175(1), first sentence, point 2, of the AO — under which a tax assessment notice must be amended provided that an event with retroactive effect occurs — such as for example the submission of a corporation tax certificate — and consequently a corporation tax credit is possible in relation to domestic dividends even where income tax assessments have become final, whereas this would not be possible in relation to foreign dividends for want of a corporation tax certificate?


title: Case T-295/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2008 — Base v Commission (Action for annulment — Telecommunications — Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC — Wholesale market for voice call termination on individual mobile networks in Belgium — Significant power on the market — Commission's comments letter — Non-actionable measure — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2008 — Base v Commission
   (Case T-295/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Telecommunications - Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC - Wholesale market for voice call termination on individual mobile networks in Belgium - Significant power on the market - Commission's comments letter - Non-actionable measure - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 107/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Base NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Verheyden, Y. Desmedt and F. Bimont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 4 August 2006, addressed to the Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunications (Belgian Institute of Post and Telecommunications Services) containing comments, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), concerning a draft decision notified by that institute (Case BE/2006/0433).
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the Commission;

               3.

               orders Mobistar SA and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-519/14 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Registration of the designation ‘Gouda Holland’ — Producers using the name ‘Gouda’ — Absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie
   (Case C-519/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Registration of the designation ‘Gouda Holland’ - Producers using the name ‘Gouda’ - Absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2016/C 038/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, J. Guillem Carrau and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, acting as Agents), Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, advocaten)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. shall pay the costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case T-344/04: Action brought on 13 August 2004 by Stardust Marine S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/55

         Action brought on 13 August 2004 by Stardust Marine S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-344/04)
   (2004/C 262/101)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by Stardust Marine S.A., established in Paris, represented by Bernard Vatier, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that European Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999, which orders the French State to recover the alleged State aid of FRF 600 million from STARDUST, is vitiated by illegality, and that that illegality is of such a kind as to engage the Commission's liability under Article 288 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               Consequently, order the European Commission to pay to Stardust the sum of EUR 112 635 569.73 in damages, with statutory interest from the date of the present application;

               —

               Order that the forthcoming decision shall be provisionally enforceable;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs in the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its application, the applicant claims that the unlawful nature of Decision 2000/513/EC cannot be disputed, since that decision has already been annulled by judgment of the Court of Justice EC of 16 May 2002 in Case C-482/99. That unlawfulness is, the applicant submits, sufficient to engage the Commission's non-contractual liability under Article 288 EC. The applicant also claims that, even supposing that the decision at issue were a legislative act containing economic policy measures, the Commission would have infringed a superior rule of law protecting individuals by adopting a decision adversely affecting the applicant without legal or factual basis. Therefore, the applicant argues that the Commission is required to pay damages to it.
   As concerns the harm allegedly sustained, the applicant states that STARDUST was the subject of a court-supervised recovery scheme by judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris. The cessation of payments which led to that judgment is the direct consequence of the debt arising from the Commission's decision. The harm sustained is the amount of the deficit in STARDUST's assets.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 November 2003 in Case T-198/03 R Bank of Austria Creditanstalt AG v Commission of the European Communities (Interim proceedings — Admissibility — Competition — Publication of a decision imposing a fine — No Urgency — Lack)

text:
C 35/10                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             7.2.2004
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF                                  4.    The application for interim measures in Case T-125/03 R is
                         FIRST INSTANCE                                           dismissed.
                                                                            5.    The Commission’s statement that it will not allow third parties
                        of 30 October 2003                                        to have access to the Set B documents pending judgment in the
                                                                                main proceedings in Case T-253/03 is noted.
In Joined Cases T-125/03 R: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd                        6.    In Case T-253/03 R, the operation of Article 2 of the
and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European                             Commission’s decision of 8 May 2003 concerning a claim of
                            Communities                                           legal privilege (Case COMP/E-1/38.589) is suspended pending
                                                                                the judgment of the Court in the main proceedings.
(Interim measures — Competition — Commission’s powers                       7.    The sealed envelope containing the Set A documents will be
of investigation — Protection of confidentiality — Com-                           kept by the Registry of the Court of First Instance pending the
     munications between lawyers and clients — Limits)                            decision of the Court in the main action.
                                                                            8.    The remainder of the application for interim measures in Case
                           (2004/C 35/15)                                         T-253/03 R is dismissed.
                                                                            9.    The costs in Cases T-125/03 R and T-253/03 R are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Joined Cases T-125/03 R and T-253/03 R, Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF
Akcros Chemicals Ltd, established in Surrey (United Kingdom),                                        FIRST INSTANCE
represented by C. Swaak and M. Mollica, lawyers, v Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Waiwright
and C. Ingen-Housz): Application for, first, suspension of the                                      of 7 November 2003
operation of the Commission’s decision of 10 February 2003
amending the decision of 30 January 2003 ordering Akzo                      in Case T-198/03 R Bank of Austria Creditanstalt AG v
Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd and Akcros                                 Commission of the European Communities
Chemicals and their subsidiaries to submit to an investigation
under Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February
1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of               (Interim proceedings — Admissibility — Competition —
the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), and              Publication of a decision imposing a fine — No Urgency —
also other interim measures to protect the applicants’ interests                                             Lack)
(Case T-125/03 R), and, second, suspension of the operation
of the Commission’s decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting a claim                                            (2004/C 35/16)
of legal privilege in respect of five documents copied during
an investigation and also other interim measures to protect
the applicants’ interests (Case T-253/03 R), the President of                                   (Language of the case: German)
the Court of First Instance has made an order on 30 October
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            In Case T-198/03 R Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG, established
                                                                            in Vienna (Austria), represented by C. Zschocke and J. Beninca,
1.   Cases T-125/03 R and T-253/03 R are joined for the                     lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
     purposes of this order.                                                the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: S. Rat-
                                                                            ing) — application for suspension of the operation of the
2.   The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European              decision of the Commission’s Hearing Officer of 5 May 2003
     Union, the Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van                   to publish the non-confidential version of the Commission
     Advocaten and the European Company Lawyers Association                 decision of 11 June 2002 in Case COMP/36.571/D-1 —
     are granted leave to intervene in Cases T-125/03 R and                 Austrian Banks (‘Club Lombard’), the President of the Court of
     T-253/03 R.                                                            First Instance made an order on 7 November 2003, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:
3.   At the stage of the application for interim measures, the requests
     for confidential treatment submitted by the applicants in respect      1)    The application for interim relief is rejected.
     of certain matters in the procedural documents in Cases T-125/
     03 R and T-253/03 R and referred to as such in the letter of           2)    The costs are reserved.
     16 September 2003 from the Registry to the applicants are
     granted.


title: Case C-155/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia (Italy) lodged on 27 March 2013 — SICES and Others v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia (Italy) lodged on 27 March 2013 — SICES and Others v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia
   (Case C-155/13)
   2013/C 178/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi srl, in liquidation (SICES) and Others

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia

      Question referred

   On a proper construction of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007, (1) is there an unlawful transfer of licences for the importation at a preferential rate of duty of garlic of Chinese origin under the GATT quota, where the holder of those licences, following payment of the duty due, places the garlic in question on the market by means of a transfer to another trader who holds import licences and from whom it had — prior to the importation — acquired the garlic concerned?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 of 29 March 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries (OJ 2007 L 90, p. 12).


24 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 159/29
— annul the decision of 20 July 1994 drawing up the                          Removal from the register of Case T-445/93 ( )
     applicant's staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 and                                     ( 95/C 159/60 )
     all subsequent decisions adopted on the basis of that
     report,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of
     10 February 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's             By order of 6 April 1 995 the President of the Fourth
    complaint, and                                                    Chamber (extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              from the register of Case T-445/93 : Eastern Electricity pic,
                                                                      East Midlands Electricity pic, Electricity Association
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Services Limited, London Electricity pic, Manweb pic,
The applicant, an official of the Court of Auditors of grade          Midlands Electricity pic, National Power pic, Northern
A 5 and President of the Staff Committee of that institution          Electric pic, Norweb pic, PowerGen pic, Seeboard pic,
at the material time, complains that the appointing                   Southern Electric pic, South Wales Electricity pic, South
authority failed to observe certain principles of law when            Western Electricity pic, The National Grid Company pic
drawing up his staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 .             and Yorkshire Electricity Group pic v . Council of the
                                                                      European Union and Commission of the European
He argues that it was contrary to Article 43 of the Staff             Communities .
Regulations and general implementing provisions for his
staff report to have been drawn up by the head of his original        f 1 ) OJ No C 57, 4 . 3 . 1992 .
department when, during the material time, he had been
placed at the disposal of the Staff Committee on a full-time
basis .
Moreover, since the general implementing provisions
provide that the Secretary-General is, in the event of an                      Removal from the register of Case T-8/94 H
appeal, competent only in respect of those officials assessed                                       95/C 159/61 )
who are directly under the authority of the director of a
preparatory group, which is not the case of the Staff
Committee , it is contrary to those provisions for his                                (Language of tbe case: French)
definitive staff report to have been drawn up by the
Secretary-General .                                                   By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Finally, the applicant stresses the fact that over the period in      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
question his immediate superior could not have taken                  T-8/94 : H. v. Commission of the European
account of developments in his merits since his last staff            Communities .
report, given that the duties undertaken by the Staff
Committee form an integral part of the services which                 f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
officials are required to ensure .
        Removal from the register of Case T-20/93 C )                        Removal from the register of Case T- 1 88/94 ( 1 )
                         ( 95/C 159/59 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/62
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                                       (Language of the case: Frencb)
By order of 5 April 1995 the President of the Third Chamber           By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Second
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-20/93 :               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Willy Seghers v . Council of the European Union.                      T-l 88/94: Nathalie Creste v . Council of the European
                                                                      Union .
(M OJ No C 89 , 31 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .


title: Case C-90/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/7

         Action brought on 21 February 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-90/12)
   2012/C 126/15
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting appropriate measures needed to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles of the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 5 of Regulation No 847/2004 requires Member States to ensure ‘a distribution of traffic rights among eligible [European Union] air carriers on the basis of a non-discriminatory and transparent procedure’. In addition, under Article 6 of the regulation, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission without delay of the procedures applied for the purposes of Article 5. The Commission publishes those procedures in the Official Journal. The carrying out of the procedures referred to in those provisions is dependent upon the adoption of an appropriate implementing regulation by the minister responsible for transport matters. That regulation had still not been adopted when the present action was brought and in any event the Polish authorities have not informed the Commission in that regard. In those circumstances, the Commission assumes that the carrying out of the procedures envisaged in Article 5 of Regulation No 847/2004 and the appropriate notification of the Commission on the basis of Article 6 of the regulation are not possible, given the lack of appropriate provisions in Polish law.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 7.


title: Case F-146/15: Action brought on 27 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/45

         Action brought on 27 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-146/15)
   (2016/C 068/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request that his appraisal reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 be converted to merit points.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 8 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s request that his appraisal reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 be converted to merit points;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


28.7.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, the applicant does not accept that the letter of intent
                                                                         gave rise to State aid to which the Treaty rules on State aid
—     annul Article 2 of the decision of 29 November 2000 of             applied or that, if there were any such aid, it was incompatible
      the Commission of the European Communities in Case                 with the common market. That question is, however, not of
      No. C32/93 declaring the aid scheme implemented by                 practical concern to the applicant, since, in the applicant’s
      Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de           submissions, no order can lawfully made for the recovery of
      Vizcaya to be incompatible with the common market;                 such aid, if any.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) Judgment of 28.1.1999 in Case T-14/96, BAI v Commission
                                                                             [1999] ECR II-139.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, formerly known as Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya
S.A., was granted alleged State aid relating to a new ferry service
between Bilbao (Spain) and Portsmouth (United Kingdom),                         Removal from the Register of Case T-163/00 (1)
pursuant to a letter of intent which was approved by the
Commission in June 1995. That approval decision was                                               (2001/C 212/51)
subsequently annulled by the Court of First Instance (1). The
decision contested in the present case was taken by the                                     (Language of the case: French)
Commission in November 2000 following a re-examination
of the case.                                                             By order of 28 March 2001, the President of the Chamber of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-163/00,
The applicant alleges that the contested decision is wrong,              Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Auditors of the European
insofar as it concludes that the agreement was not notified in           Communities.
accordance with Article 93(3) [now Article 88(3)] of the Treaty
because it was not notified by the Spanish Government. The
Commission did not raise with the applicant’s lawyers or with            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
the Spanish Government any question about the insufficiency
in law of communication from the prospective beneficiary’s
lawyers, rather than from the Member State concerned, as
‘information’ for the purposes of Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
Furthermore, the information provided by the applicant’s
lawyers was used by the Commission for the purposes of its                      Removal from the Register of Case T-205/00 (1)
decision of June 1995.
                                                                                (2001/C 212/52)
The applicant further submits that a notified State aid that is
the subject of a favourable decision before it is granted is                                (Language of the case: French)
irrecoverable. The beneficiary has a legitimate expectation of
which it cannot be deprived by reason of annulment of the                By order of 27 March 2001, the President of the Chamber of
Commission’s favourable decision on the basis of which the               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
beneficiary accepted the aid. Any contrary solution would                ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-205/00,
undermine the entire scheme of State aid rules under the                 Renco SPA against the Council of the European Union.
Treaty and would have manifestly and gravely objectionable
consequences in practice.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.