title: Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Asia Motor France and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-225/97)

text:
C 318/28              1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
2 . declare that the applicant is entitled to have her initial         The applicants claim that the Court should:
    classification reviewed as requested by way of the
    document of 21 June 1996 ;
                                                                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,
3 . order the European Commission to pay:                              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    — the difference in the applicant's salary as from the
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         date when the decision amending the criteria for
         classification began to produce its effects, that is
         5 October 19 95 , together with the accrued                   The applicants complain that the defendant has failed
         interest,                                                     to enforce the judgments of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of 29 June 1993 ( 1 ) and 18 September 1996 (2 ). Those
    — ECU 1 000 by way of compensation for the non                    judgments were delivered following a complaint made
         material damage caused, and                                   against certain undertakings alleging that they had
                                                                       colluded to secure exclusive control of the market for
                                                                       Japanese vehicles in France by excluding products of the
     — the costs of these proceedings .                                makes imported by the applicants, and that they had
                                                                       organized the division between them of sub-quotas under
                                                                       a system known as 'voluntary limitation ', eliminating all
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    competition .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               The applicants claim that, following the annulment by the
relied on in Case T-16/97 (').                                         aforementioned judgment of 29 June 1993 of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaints, the Commission maintained its
                                                                       position in a letter of 9 March 1994 which formed the
In particular, the applicant considers that the varying of             subject matter of a fresh action for annulment culminating
an   internal    Commission decision as a         result of the        in the judgment of 18 September 1996 , likewise referred
annulment by the Court of previous legislation, where                  to above, by which the decision rejecting the complaints
such legislation was the basis for an erroneous                        was annulled .
classification, constitutes a new fact capable of starting the
period for lodging the complaint running again.
                                                                       In those circumstances, by letter of 11 April 1997, Asia
                                                                       Motor France, Mr Cesbron, EAS and Monin Automobiles
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .                                    and their liquidators requested the defendant to send to
                                                                       the French importers of the Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi ,
                                                                       Toyota and Nissan marks a statement of objections, in
                                                                       order that, at the very least, a finding should finally
                                                                        be made as to the existence of the restrictive practice
                                                                       complained of and that steps should be taken to impose
                                                                        penalties in respect of it.
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Asia Motor France
 and others against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                Following the expiry of a period of two months, the
                                                                        applicants brought the present action .
                          ( Case T-225/97)
                            ( 97/C 318/55 )                             (') Case T-7/92 ([ 1993 ] ECR 11-669 ).
                                                                        ( 2 ) Case T-387/94 ([ 19961 ECR 11-961 ).
                 (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 30 July 1997                   Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Guerin Automobiles
 by Asia Motor France, the principal place of business of                    against the Commission of the European Communities
 which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), Jean-Michel Cesbron,                                          Case T-226/97 )
 businessman , trading as JMC Automobiles, residing at
 Livange ( Luxembourg ), Monin Automobiles, the principal                                           ( 97/C 318/56
 place of business of which is at Bourg-de-Peage ( France ),
 and Europe Auto Service ( EAS ), the principal place of                                  (Language of the case: French)
 business of which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), represented
 by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   An action against the Commission of the European
 Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-295/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Camara v Council

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/51

         Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Camara v Council
   (Case T-295/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kerfalla Person Camara (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen under Article 6 of that regulation.
   In support of his action, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:

               —

               a manifest error of assessment in including the applicant on the list of natural or legal persons entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen;

               —

               an infringement of Article 215(3) TFEU since the contested regulation does not contain any legal guarantees, in particular procedural guarantees;

               —

               an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as the contested regulation infringes, (i) the principle of non-discrimination by maintaining the applicant's name on the list of persons sanctioned because of social background, (ii) his rights of defence in that it does not provide for any procedure to inform the applicant of the evidence against him, (iii) the right to an effective judicial remedy in that the Council did not inform the applicant of his rights of appeal, and (iv) the applicant's right to property.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 346, p. 26.


C 246/46              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-32/96 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-6/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/93)                                                           (1999/C 246/96)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second                    By order of 5 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-6/97: Com-
the register of Case T-32/96: Société Générale v Commission              africa SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Com-
of the European Communities.                                             mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and
                           T-8/97 (1)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-62/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/94)                                                           (1999/C 246/97)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth                  By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance             Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and T-8/97: Union                  the register of Case T-62/97: Société Générale v Commission
Carbide Corporation v Commission of the European Com-                    of the European Communities.
munities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-124/97 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case T-1/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/95)                                                           (1999/C 246/98)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
By order of 31 May 1999 the President of the Second Chamber              By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/97:                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/97:
Jean-Luc Delhaye v Commission of the European Communi-                   Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche v Commission of the European
ties.                                                                    Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 8 July 1998 in Case C-9/98: Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

text:
24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/5
concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a              pending before that court between Ermanno Agostini and
public service in transport by rail, road and inland                 Emanuele Agostini and Ligue Francophone de Judo et
waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 276),             Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL
as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of                 on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 and 59 of the EC
20 June 1991 (OJ L 169, 29.6.1991, p. 1), in particular              Treaty, of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
Article 1(3) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof Ð the             15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                    within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,               1968 (II), p. 475), and of Council Directive 73/148/EEC
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges;                 of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on
P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 movement and residence within the Community for
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                nationals of Member States with regard to establishment
17 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                            and the provision of services (OJ L 172, 19.6.1973, p. 14)
                                                                     Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June                R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini
1969 on action by Member States concerning the                       (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.
obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in           Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended              G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges,
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June                    G. Cosmas, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, made
1991, in particular Article 1(3) and Article 4 thereof, must         an order on 8 July 1998, the operative part is as follows:
be construed as not obliging the Member States to grant
an application by a transport undertaking for partial
termination of its public service obligation, even if that
undertaking shows that maintaining the obligation                    The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the
involves economic disadvantages for it. However, the only            Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance, Namur, by order of that
ground for refusing such an application is the need to               court of 5 January 1998, is inadmissible.
ensure adequate transport services. That concept is to be
assessed, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation
                                                                     (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
(EEC) No 1191/69, by reference to the public interest, the
possibility of having recourse to other forms of transport
and the ability of such forms to meet the transport needs
under consideration, and the transport rates and
conditions which can be quoted to users. Where there
are several ways of ensuring, while satisfying similar
conditions, the provision of adequate transport services,
the competent authorities are to select the way least costly         Action brought on 23 July 1998 by the Italian Republic
to the community.                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-295/98)
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
                                                                                (98/C 327/09)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 the European Communities on 23 July 1998 by the Italian
                        of 8 July 1998                               Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza,
                                                                     acting as Agent, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato
in Case C-9/98: Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini               dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
v Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines AssocieÂes                the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
           ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL (1)
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (98/C 327/08)
                (Language of the case: French)                       Ð Annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
                                                                         1998 (1) in so far as, in clearing the accounts presented
                                                                         by the Italian Republic in respect of expenditure for
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           1994, it declares that, for the reasons set out therein,
          published in the European Court Reports)                       the amounts referred to are not chargeable to the
                                                                         EAGGF;
In Case C-9/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance,
Namur, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-270/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas
   (Case C-270/17)
   (2017/C 277/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Tadas Tupikas

      Question referred

   Are appeal proceedings

               —

               in which there has been an examination of the merits and

               —

               which resulted in the passing of a (new) sentence on the person concerned and/or the confirmation of the sentence handed down at first instance,

               —

               where the EAW [European Arrest Warrant] concerns the execution of that sentence,

         the ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? (1)

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-70/99: Action brought on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc. against the Council of the European Union

text:
19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 174/9
The applicant association concludes its arguments by asserting           The applicant raises the following pleas in law:
that insufficient reasons have been given for the requirement
that the aid in issue be repaid, and that this infringes the             — infringement of an essential procedural requirement in
principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate                   that the contested regulation has provided no or at least
expectations, equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrari-               no clear legal basis and/or that the joinder of two legal
ness.                                                                         bases results in a breach of the essential procedural
                                                                              requirements laid down in Directive 70/524/EEG; (2)
                                                                         — manifest error of assessment on the part of the Council in
                                                                              the application of Article 3(a)(e) of Directive 70/524/EEC;
                                                                         — infringement by the Council of fundamental principles of
                                                                              law forming part of the Community legal order, such as the
Action brought on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc.                              proportionality principle, the principle of the protection of
          against the Council of the European Union                           legitimate expectations and the right to be heard and,
                                                                              finally;
                         (Case T-70/99)
                                                                         — insufficient reasoning for the contested regulation and,
                                                                              consequently, infringement by the Council of Article 190
                        (1999/C 174/19)                                       of the EC Treaty.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       (1) See also pending Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Councilnot
                                                                             yet published in the OJ.
                                                                         (2) Council Directive of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      feedingstuffs, OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc., Fort Lee
(the United States of America) represented by Mr. Gavin
Robert, London, and Mr. Bemard Van de Walle de Ghelcke,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Company Ltd against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 Decem-
    ber 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authoris-                                       (Case T-75/99)
    ation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EC concern-
    ing additives in feedingstuffs; or                                                             (1999/C 174/20)
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in so far as it
    relates to withdrawal of authorisation of bacitracin zinc;                               (Language of the case: English)
    and
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
                                                                         Company Ltd, represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brinckman, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, B.P. 39, L-2010.
The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware and established in the United States of                The applicant claims that the Court should:
America, produces an antibiotic feed additive called bacitracin
zinc, in formulations appropriate for use as an antimicrobial            — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that, in
growth promoter in animals. The applicant is the only                         breach of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, the Commission
manufacturer and the most important supplier of bacitracin                    has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with
zinc in the EEA and markets its additive, which is produced in                the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
Norway, under the trade name Albac.                                           1998 in Case T-120/96 (Lilly Industries Ltd v Commission);
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU
The contested regulation(1) withdraws the autorisation to use                 2.6 million, in accordance with Articles 178 and 215,
and market bacitracin zinc as an additive in animal feeding-                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for the material and
stuffs with effect from 30 June 1999. Banning bacitracine zinc                non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
was found to be a necessary safeguard pending further                         of the Commission’s failure to act;
comprehensive evidence as to the possibility of antibiotic
resistance and the assessment of the risk of transfer from               — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU 1 000
animals to humans. Such transfer of resistance would reduce                   per day from the date of the judgment in the present case
the effectiveness of bacitracin zinc used as a human medicinal                to the date until such time as the Commission has taken
product. Three other products, spiramycin, virginiamycin and                  the measures necessary in order to comply with the
tylosin phosphate, were banned at the same time. The ban is                   judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-120/96;
to be reviewed no later than 31 December 2000.                                and


title: Case T-494/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2013 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2013 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council
   (Case T-494/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 79/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Saderat Iran (Teheran, Iran) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, R. Blakeley and D. Wyatt QC, and lastly by S. Ashley, R. Blakeley and D. Wyatt and by S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Saderat Iran:

                           —

                           Point 7 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

                           —

                           Point 5 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Point 7 of Table I.B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           Point 7 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

                           —

                           Point 7 of Table I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010.

               2.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Bank Saderat Iran until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect.

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Bank Saderat Iran.

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 1996 in Case C-251/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco): Eduardo Lafuente Nieto v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Social security - Invalidity - Articles 46 and 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Calculation of benefits)

text:
No C 354/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23 . 11 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       by Article 51 of the EEC (now the EC) Treaty, implies
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main
                                                                          proceedings, calculation of the average basis for
                    of 12 September 1996                                  contributions rests solely on the amount of
in Case C-251 /94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from               contributions paid under the legislation concerned, and
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad                         the theoretical amount of the benefit thus obtained is to
Autónoma del País Vasco ): Eduardo Lafuente Nieto v.                      be duly revalorized and increased as if the person
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( INSS ) and                    concerned had continued to work under the same
    Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social ( TGSS )( ] )                conditions in the Member State in question.
(Social security — Invalidity — Articles 46 and 47 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Calculation of
                               benefits)                              3 . Article 46 (2) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 does
                                                                          not cover the calculation of invalidity benefits under a
                           ( 96/C 354/06 )                                scheme such as that provided for by Spanish legislation,
                                                                          whereby the amount of benefit does not depend on the
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                            length of the insurance periods.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-251 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la
Comunidad Autonoma del Pais Vasco [High Court of
Justice of the Basque Autonomous Community] ( Spain ) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Eduardo Lafuente Nieto and Instituto                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( INSS ) and Tesoreria                                        ( Fifth Chamber )
General de la Seguridad Social ( TGSS ) — on the
interpretation and validity of Article 47 ( 1 ) of Council                                of 12 September 1996
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                  in Case C-278/94 : Commission of the European
application of social security schemes to employed persons,                     Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( ] )
to self-employed persons and to members of their families             (Failure ofa Member State to fulfil its obligations — Indirect
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                discrimination on grounds of nationality — Children of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ            migrant workers — Social advantages — Young people
No L 230 , 1 983 , p. 6 ) and as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII ,      seeking first employment — Access to special employment
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                                         programmes)
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/07 )
adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ No L 302 , 1985 , p. 170 ),
and on the interpretation of Article 46 ( 2 ) of that regulation
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet                                  (Language of the case: French)
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A.
La Pergola , Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1996 , in which it rules :                                                    published in the European Court Reports)
1 . Article 47 ( 1 ) (e) of Council Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-278/94 : Commission of the European
    No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial            Communities ( Agent: M. Wolfcarius ) v. Kingdom of
    security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed            Belgium ( Agents : J. Devadder and C. Deneve ) — application
    persons and to members of their families moving within            for a declaration that, by requiring that young people
    the Community, as amended and updated by Council                  seeking their first employment have completed their
    Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and as                secondary education in an establishment subsidized or
    adapted by Annex 1, Part VIII of the Act concerning the           approved by the Belgian State ( or by one of its communities )
    conditions ofaccession of the Kingdom of Spain and the            in order to be eligible for tideover allowances, and by
    Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the                    encouraging employers at the same time to take on
     Treaties, covers a system for calculating invalidity             beneficiaries of those unemployment allowances by
    benefits on an average basis for contributions, as laid           providing for the State to assume responsibility in such a
    down by the Spanish legislation .                                 case for the remuneration and social security contributions
                                                                      for such workers if they are wholly unemployed and on
                                                                      benefit, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
2 . Article 47 (1 ) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ,              obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 3
    interpreted in accordance with the objective laid down            and 7 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of


title: Case C-242/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 April 2016 — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 April 2016 — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited
   (Case C-242/16)
   (2016/C 251/17)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso

      Defendant: Netjets Management Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the factual context of the present case — the employee is a civil-aviation pilot and the activity carried out by him, under his employment contract, encompasses the whole of the European airspace — is the determination of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ and/or the ‘last place where he did so’, within the meaning of Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, (1) adversely affected?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, that is, such a determination is not adversely affected:

                           (i)

                           Must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of the abovementioned provision of Community law, be interpreted as being the place of the airport where the aircraft to be flown by the employee is stationed, where he begins the journey at the start of his duties?
                           And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be interpreted as corresponding to the place which the parties designate as the gateway airport, from which the employee was transported to the airport where the aircraft to be flown by him was stationed, and to which he later returned?
                           And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be the place of registration of the aircraft flown by him?
                           And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be the place from where the employee received instructions, communications and information about the flight operations, various aspects of his professional relationship with the defendant and the process which led to its termination?

                           (ii)

                           Must/may the ‘last place where he did so’, within the meaning of the abovementioned provision of Community law, be interpreted as being the place of the airport where the aircraft flown by the employee for the last time before his employment contract was terminated is stationed?
                           Or rather, must/may the ‘last place where he did so’ be interpreted as corresponding to the place which the parties designate as the gateway airport from which the employee was transported, for the last time before his employment contract was terminated, to the airport where the aircraft which he was due to fly was stationed, and to which he later returned?

               3.

               In the factual context of the present case, may the expression ‘business which engaged the employee’, within the meaning of Article 19(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, be interpreted as meaning ‘operations centre’ of the undertaking which is stated as the employer in the employment contract concluded with the employee, where the recruitment process for pilots is conducted (through the reception and processing of the respective candidacies) and where they receive initial and further training, even if the ‘operations centre’ referred to operates and is domiciled [through] another, legally independent undertaking, although both undertakings belong to the same economic group?

               4.

               In the factual context of the present case, may the expressions ‘central administration’ or ‘principal place of business’, within the meaning of Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, be interpreted as meaning ‘operations centre’ of the undertaking which is stated as the employer in the employment contract concluded with the employee, where all the aspects of its operations are controlled (from the control of the maintenance, flight operations and scheduling, to the operation, maintenance and piloting of the aircraft and ground and catering operations) and from where all instructions are issued to the pilots and they receive the initial and further training, human resource issues are managed and disciplinary meetings held or complaints handled, even if the ‘operations centre’ referred to operates and is domiciled [through] another, legally independent undertaking, although both undertakings belong to the same economic group?

               5.

               Having regard to the content of recital 13 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 which states that, in relation to insurance, consumer contracts and employment, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for, must the abovementioned Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted in a more favourable manner for the employee?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-675/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/28

         Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)
   (Case T-675/16)
   (2016/C 410/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU trade mark ‘mycard2go’ — Application No 14 303 416

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 282/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the defendant for continuation of the registration procedure concerning EU trade mark No 014303416;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-127/99: Action brought on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia - Diputación Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/41
Action brought on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio                             Article 87 EC (ex Article 92). The tax authorities do not
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                    possess the alleged discretion attributed to them by the
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                       Commission, and the requirements laid down in the
                         Communities                                        Norma Foral may be fulfilled by any economic operator,
                                                                            irrespective of the sector in which it carries on its activities:
                        (Case T-127/99)                                 — erroneous application of the exception based on the nature
                                                                            and scheme of the system, which may justify a finding of
                        (1999/C 226/72)                                     selectivity in the event that such a finding is made. The
                                                                            applicant maintains in that regard that the criteria for
                                                                            application of Normas Forales 22/1994 and 24/1996 are
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                           objective and transparent, and moreover, that they are
                                                                            necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by
                                                                            them.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio                   comply with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                for the acts adopted by it.
Foral de Alava, established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente lawyers,
with an address for service c/o Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78
Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Signal Communi-
                                                                        cations Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the
— annul the Commission Decision of 24 February 1999                                              Internal Market
    concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-
    tronics Manufacturing España (DEMESA), in particular
    Articles 1(d) and (e) and 2(1)(b) thereof and, in so far as it                               (Case T-128/99)
    may be concerned Article 2(2) thereof;
                                                                                (1999/C 226/73)
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of           European Communities on 25 May 1999 b Signal Communi-
the Commission by which it found that the following financial           cations Ltd., represented by John Grayston and André Bywater,
measures adopted in relation to Daewoo Electronics Manufac-             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
turing España S.A. (DEMESA) constitute State aid incompatible          Duro & Lang, 3 rue de la Chappelle.
with the common market:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
— free occupation of land on the Júndiz industrial estate for
    a term of nine months pending payment of the price                  — declare the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the
    thereof;                                                                Internal Market First Board of Appeal of 24 March 1999,
                                                                            dismissing the appeal by the applicant, is void:
— the investment subsidy granted by the Basque authorities              — order that Community Trade Mark Application
    in the context of the EKIMEN programme, 5 % of which                    No 837096 be amended from TELEYE to TELEEYE; and
    was not covered by that scheme;
                                                                        — order the costs of proceedings to be borne by the
— the benefit of the measures provided for in Normas                        defendant.
    Forales (regional regulations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 of the
    Territorio Histórico de Alava, consisting of a tax credit of
    45 % of the cost of the investment and a reduction of the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    basis of assessment granted to newly created undertakings.
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:             ‘TELEYE’ - Application No
                                                                                837096
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                        Product or service:               alarm and surveillance systems
— misinterpretation by the Commission of the concept of                                                   (Class 9)
    State aid, as regards the Commission’s view that the tax
    credit and the reduction of the basis of assessment                 Decision contested before         decision of the examiner not
    constitute measures of a selective nature and, consequently,        the Board of Appeal:              allowing an amendment of the
    that they amount to State aid. The applicant maintains in                                             application for the trace mark
    that regard that the measures in issue are of a general                                               ‘TELEYE’ to ‘TETEEYE’
    nature and that, as such, they fall outside the scope of


title: Case C-46/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/12

         Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-46/09)
   2009/C 90/18
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Randvere and K. Simonsson)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, since it has not correctly transposed into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2000/59/EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It follows from Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2000/59 that the Republic of Estonia is under an obligation to establish criteria in order to select ships, other than fishing vessels and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers, for inspection.
   Article 11(2)(c) of Directive 2000/59 provides that, if the relevant authority is not satisfied with the results of this inspection, it must ensure that the ship does not leave the port until it has delivered its ship-generated waste and cargo residues to a port reception facility in accordance with Articles 7 and 10.
   The Republic of Estonia has stated its intention to supplement the Estonian legislation in order to correctly transpose those provisions of the directive. The Commission does not have any information on the adoption of such amendments.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81


title: Case C-281/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Scope — Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/5

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
   (Case C-281/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Scope - Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))
   (2016/C 279/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

      Defendant: Raja Mamisch

      Operative part of the order:

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich, Germany) by decision of 2 June 2015.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-712/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/33

         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB
   (Case T-712/15)
   (2016/C 059/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq-Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the European Central Bank decision of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B8NLR5984/28) setting out the prudential requirements for Groupe Crédit Mutuel.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (‘the decision’) is unlawful on the grounds that it infringes the provisions of EU law restricting the ECB’s competence in matters of prudential supervision to credit institutions only. The plea is divided into four parts.

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the legislation applicable to the ECB’s banking supervision activities strictly restricts its competence to credit institutions and other financial institutions.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel (CNCM) is not a credit institution and that the supervision of Crédit Mutuel by the ECB could not take place at the level of the CNCM.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that the inability of the ECB to exercise prudential supervisory authority over the CNCM is confirmed by the fact, acknowledged by the ECB, that it has no power to impose penalties.

                           —

                           Fourth part, alleging that, since it lacks the power to impose any measures on the CNCM, it is in vain and on a legally erroneous basis that the decision purports to impose corrective measures on the Crédit Mutuel group, which has no legal existence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision should also be annulled on the ground that it unlawfully finds that Crédit Mutuel as a whole is a group within the meaning of the European provisions on prudential supervision. The plea is divided into three parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the general principle laid down by EU law constitutes, on the one hand, prudential supervision of credit institutions on an individual basis and, on the other, consolidated supervision at the level of mutual groups assuming that they may be treated like a single entity.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the legal conditions laid down by EU law allowing for consolidated prudential supervision at group level of banks have not been met.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that none of the three conditions permitting consolidated supervision at the level of Crédit Mutuel as a whole have been met in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision should also be annulled inasmuch as it unlawfully increases from 8 % to 11 % the requirement of common equity tier 1 capital applicable to the Crédit Mutuel Arkéa group. The plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, that the decision is vitiated by an error of law.

                           —

                           Second part, that the decision is also vitiated by errors of assessment.


title: Case C-177/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 11 May 1999 in the case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire

text:
17.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 204/29
     interpreted as permitting a Member State to enact national           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     legislation under which:                                             Administratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First
                                                                          Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 11 May
     (a) a worker does not begin to accrue rights to the paid             1999 in the case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des
         annual leave specified in Article 7 (or to derive any                          Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire
         benefits consequent thereon) until he has completed
         a qualifying period of employment with the same                                            (Case C-177/99)
         employer; but
                                                                                (1999/C 204/55)
     (b) once that qualifying period has been completed, his
         employment during the qualifying period is taken into
         account for the purposes of computing his leave                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         entitlement?                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admi-
                                                                          nistratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First Chamber),
                                                                          France, of 11 May 1999, which was received at the Court
2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what are the factors             Registry on 17 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
     that the national court should take into account in order            case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
     to determine whether a particular qualifying period of               Maine-et-Loire, on the following question:
     employment with the same employer is lawful and pro-
     portionate? In particular, is it legitimate for a Member State
     to take into account the cost for employers of conferring            ‘Are the provisions of the Decision of 28 July 1989 of the
     the rights on those workers who are employed for less                Council of the European Communities (1) authorising the
     than the qualifying period?                                          French Government to derogate from the limit imposed by the
                                                                          Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 and
                                                                          to extend to third parties exclusions of expenditure on
                                                                          accommodation, restaurants, hospitality and entertainment
                                                                          from the right to deduct tax compatible, first, with the
                                                                          objectives of the Sixth Directive and in particular Article 27
                                                                          thereof which stases that “the Council, acting unanimously on
                                                                          a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member
                                                                          State to introduce special measures for derogation from the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil de                      provisions of this directive, in order to simplify the procedure
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber),                     for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax
by judgment of that tribunal of 14 April 1999 in the case                 evasion or avoidance”, and, second, with the principle of
of Didier Mayeur aginst APIM Association Promotion de                     proportionality between the tax objective pursued and the
                     l’Information Messine                                means employed?’
                         (Case C-175/99)                                  (1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the
                                                                              French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second
                                                                              subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC
                         (1999/C 204/54)                                      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                              to turnover taxes (OJ L 239, p. 21).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil de
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber) of
14 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 11 May
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Didier Mayeur
against APIM Association Promotion de l’Information Messine.
The Labour Tribunal, Metz, Miscellaneous Activities Chamber,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksge-
requests the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following           richt Bregenz by order of that court of 29 December 1998
question:                                                                  in the land registration case of Doris Salzmann née Greif
‘Is Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approxi-                                        (Case C-178/99)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of                                      (1999/C 204/56)
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (1) applicable
where the activity of a legal person governed by private law is           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
transferred to a legal person governed by public law? Must                European Communities by an order of the Bezirksgericht
application of that directive be excluded where the activity is           Bregenz (District Court, Bregenz), Austria, of 29 December
transferred to a public service of an administrative nature?’             1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 May
                                                                          1999, for a preliminary ruling in the land registration case of
                                                                          Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 61 of 5.3.1977, p. 26.
                                                                          1. May nationals of a Member State of the European Union
                                                                               rely on free movement of capital even if a capital trans-
                                                                               action has no transnational element?


title: Case C-398/00: Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 28/11
(4) Are penalties such as those provided for under Article 399          Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the Codice Postale Italiano (Italian Postal Regulations
     set out in Presidential Decree No 156 of 1973) compatible
     with Community law, in the light of the principles of              The Commission claims that even though there existed,
     non-discrimination and proportionality?                            within the area in question, waste-water treatment plants by
                                                                        31 December 1998, Italy should have adopted measures to
                                                                        identify the discharges for the purposes of applying Article
(1) OJ L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 10.                                         5(5) of the directive by adapting, if necessary, the relevant
(2) OJ L 321 of 30.12.1995, p. 1.                                       plants. Italy cannot justify its delay in fulfilling its obligations
                                                                        under the directive by arguing that the main factors on the
                                                                        basis of which the present situation was to be characterised,
                                                                        for the purposes of the applicability of its obligations under
                                                                        Articles 5(2) and 5(5), have not yet been examined and
                                                                        assessed, since those obligations had been entrusted to local
                                                                        bodies (the Regions). As the Court of Justice has consistently
                                                                        held, Member States cannot rely on provisions of their own
                                                                        internal legal order in order to justify failure to respect the
                                                                        obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                As regards the exemption under Article 5(4) of the directive, it
                                                                        is clear that it cannot apply unless it can be shown that the
                                                                        minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering
                                                                        all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is of a
                         (Case C-396/00)
                                                                        certain value, which is impossible for the time being because
                                                                        there is no treatment plant in existence.
                          (2001/C 28/19)
                                                                        By declaring a state of emergency, the Italian authorities have
                                                                        shown themselves to be seriously willing to resolve the
                                                                        situation even if the Commission is concerned that, despite
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           having indicated the expected dates of completion of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 October              works, by letter of 9 July and of 27 October 1999, in reply to
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the letter of formal notice, the latest letter of 6 April 2000
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,           makes no further mention in that respect. In any event, so far
and by Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal                as concerns the present case, nothing of the foregoing changes
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               the fact that Italy is in breach of Community law.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary
     to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, discharges of
     urban waste water from Milan collected in a basin
     draining into the ‘Po delta’ and ‘northwestern Adriatic
     coastal areas’, as defined by the Decree Law No 152 of
     the Italian Republic of 11 May 1999 (Provisions on the
     prevention of pollution of water and implementation of             Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Kingdom of Spain
     Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban                      against Commission of the European Communities
     waste-water treatment and Council Directive
     91/676/EEC (2) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates                                    (Case C-398/00)
     from agricultural sources), pursuant to Article 5 of
     concerning urban waste-water treatment, were subject to                                       (2001/C 28/20)
     more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment
     or equivalent described by Article 4 of that directive, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Article 5(2) of the aforementioned directive, as laid down         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     in Article 5(5);                                                   Communities on 30 October 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                        represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 22 August 2000
      in respect of all the measures it relates to with the
      exception of the grant of June 1998;                                                        (Case C-404/00)
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/21)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 November
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     The present action is directed against the decision of the         represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Stefan Rating, of its
      Commission initiating the formal investigation provided            Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      for under Article 88(2) EC into the injection of capital           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
      and regional aid given to Santana Motor SA, taking                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      the view that this was new aid, and suspending its
      implementation. The Spanish authorities however regard
      the measures to which the contested decision relates to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      be existing aid. The aid, which was duly notified on
      30 July and 17 November 1999 (capital injection and
      regional aid respectively), became existent by virtue of           —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      Article 4(6) of Council Regulation No 659/99 (1). By letter              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      of 28 July 2000 transmitted by fax on the same day, the                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the                     mission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 October 1999 (1)
      Junta de Andalucı́a was about to implement the measures                  declaring certain aid granted to the group of publicly
      notified to the Commission. The fact that that communi-                  owned shipyards in Spain to have been granted illegally
      cation was registered by the Commission on 31 July, or                   and, moreover, incompatible with the common market,
      3 days later, does not change the date on which the fax                  Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      was received, which is the transmission date.                            Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and of that
                                                                               directive; and
      The contested decision dated 22 August was notified on
      23 August 2000, when the 15 working days on which                  —     Order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      the Commission relied had expired.
      Likewise, a fax of 17 August and a letter of 21 August,            Pleas in law and main arguments
      prior to the date of the contested decision, informing the
      recipient that the Commission had ‘adopted’ that decision,
      cannot be regarded in any way as notification of the
      formal decision to initiate the investigation pursuant to          Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Decision 2000/131/EC of
      Article 4 of Regulation 659/99.                                    26 October 1999 is to be binding in its entirety upon Kingdom
                                                                         of Spain, the Member State to which it is addressed, by virtue
                                                                         of the notification served upon it on 2 December 1999.
—     (In the alternative) Inadequate statement of reasons               Although Article 243 EC provides for Court of Justice to
                                                                         prescribe any necessary interim measures, the Kingdom of
                                                                         Spain, which had brought an action for annulment under
      The contested decision was adopted by the Commission               Article 230 EC against the decision (Case C-36/00), has not to
      only in order to circumvent the deadline after which they          date submitted any request to that effect. Thus, the decision in
      became ‘existent’, and are not a reflection of a certainty         question remains binding in its entirety in respect of the
      that the measures are incompatible with the Treaty, nor            Kingdom of Spain. The Spanish Government has not complied
      that there was a need for more information than was                with the decision without it being possible to consider such
      received.                                                          failure justified by an ‘absolute impossibility’.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC      (1) On the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of the publicly
    Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).                                             owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22).


title: Case T-26/00: Action brought on 11 February 2000 by Société Lecureur SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision No 2749 of 12 October                        — annul the decision of the Commission of 13 December
    1999, and                                                                 1999;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 — order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 109 921
                                                                              in performance of the supply contract;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the Commission to pay default interest;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
The applicant in this case challenges the decision refusing to
allow him to file a statement with the Procura della Repubblica
(Public Prosecutor’s Office) at the Pretura Circondariale di
Varese (Varese District Court) concerning the disappearance of           Pleas in law and main arguments
24 autopsy specimens taken for the purposes of an expert’s
report, which it is impossible to repeat, in criminal proceedings
                                                                         The applicant, a company which successfully bid in response
pending before the Pretura di Foggia (Foggia District Court),
                                                                         to a call for tenders concerning a consignment of 15 000
and held in the radiochemical laboratory at the JRC in Ispra.
                                                                         tonnes of maize pursuant to Regulation No 990/98 of 11 May
                                                                         1998, contests a Commission decision refusing its request for
The contested decision justifies the refusal to allow the                payment of an additional sum of EUR 109 921,41 for the
applicant to file that statement with the Italian judicial               supply, which was furnished in accordance with the Regu-
authorities on the grounds that such refusal did not entail              lation. According to the Commission, deductions relating to
criminal consequences.                                                   undelivered quantities were calculated in accordance with the
                                                                         rules in force.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The applicant alleges that the Commission is thereby in breach
— Breach of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations;                         of its contractual obligations. It contests the figure taken by
                                                                         the Commission to be the final quantity on which to base
— Misuse of powers consisting, in particular, of a failure to            payment, and also the fact that it, the applicant, was deemed
    state reasons, distortion of matters of fact and of law, the         liable in respect of theft from its Niamey warehouses. The
    obvious inconsistency of the contested decision, and                 applicant also maintains that those thefts are accurately
    breach of the principles of sound administration, trans-             quantifiable; that it is easy to assign a value to the quantities
    parency, equal treatment, breach of the duty of the                  on which payment is outstanding; and that the applicant has
    Community and judicial authorities to cooperate in good              not been in a position to challenge the certificate of conformity
    faith and the principle of proportionality.                          because the wording is so ambiguous.
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by Société Lecureur                   Action brought on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                             Alias against the Committee of the Regions
                         (Case T-26/00)                                                            (Case T-28/00)
                        (2000/C 122/56)                                                           (2000/C 122/57)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 11 February 2000 by Société                      on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego Alias, residing in
Lecureur SA, whose seat is in Paris, represented by Lise                 Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Funck-Brentano, Avocat, Paris, and Jean Villette, Avocat,                Parmentier and Véronique Peere, Avocats, Brussels, with an
Versailles, France, with an address for service in Luxembourg            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
at the Chambers of Jacques Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre.                    de Gestion Fiduciaire Sarl, 2-4 Rue Beck.


title: Case T-187/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/29

         Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council
   (Case T-187/13)
   2013/C 171/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in so far as they concern the applicant : (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2);(iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (3);(iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (4);(v) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (5);(vi) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (6); (vii) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (7); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (8); and (ix) (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 (9) and

               —

               Order the Council to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging lack of authority of the Council

                           —

                           The applicant states that pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, restrictive measures can only be adopted by a joint initiative of the Commission and the High Representative. The Contested Decisions and Regulations were adopted by the Council acting alone. They are thus vitiated by lack of authority.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation to the obligation to state reasons

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the reason stated for Mr Jannatian’s listing in Annex II is too imprecise to meet the requirements set by the case law as regards the obligation to state the reasons. In order to comply with the obligation to state the grounds, the Council should have established the concrete and specific elements characterizing the existence of an effective support provided by the applicant to the Government of Iran or to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Contested Decisions and Regulations are thus vitiated by a failure to state the grounds.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights

                           —

                           The applicant states that: firstly, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence; secondly, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated; and lastly, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures - which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ - is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of evidence against the applicant

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Council failed to adduce the elements of evidence and information it relied on when it adopted the Contested Decisions and Regulations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging factual inaccuracy

                           —

                           The applicant submits that contrary to what is stated in the contested Decisions and Regulations, the applicant was no longer Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization at the respective dates of his listing among the persons and entities falling within the ambit of restrictive measures. The Council therefore erred in fact when it listed the applicant for the sole reason that, at the date of the various Contested Decisions and Regulations, he was the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging error of law

                           —

                           The applicant states that subparagraph b) of Article 20 is not meant to apply per se to individuals who hold managerial positions in an entity listed in Annex VIII. In addition, Article 20 b) provides for this listing of individuals ‘that

                                 are

                              engaged in, directly associated with, or

                                 providing

                              support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.’ By listing the applicant on Annex II without adducing any evidence that the applicant was providing an active and effective support to Iranian nuclear activities at the time of his listing in Annex II, the Council erred in law.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts and violation of the proportionality principle

                           —

                           The applicant states that in the case at hand no objective of general interest might justify that such stringent measures be imposed on individuals having held even for a brief period a managing position with the AEOI. Furthermore, even if the measures were considered as being justified by an objective of general interest, they would still be open to criticism by failing to respect a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.

      (1)  Official Journal of the European Union, 24 June 2008, No. L 163/43.

      (2)  Journal of the European Union, 24 June 2008, No. L 163/29.

      (3)  Official Journal of the European Union, 8 August 2008, No. L 213/58.

      (4)  Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2009, No. L 303/64.

      (5)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 July 2010, L 195/39.

      (6)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2010, L 281/81.

      (7)  Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2009, No. L 303/31.

      (8)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2010, L 281/1.

      (9)  Official Journal of the European Union, 24 March 2012, L 88/1.