title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2001 in Case C-67/99: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List of sites — Site information)

text:
13.10.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 289/1
                                                                      I
                                                                (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within
                                                                                the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first
                                                                                subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                        of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
                                                                                of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those
                                                                                sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)
                                                                                thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                      of 11 September 2001                                      directive;
                                                                          2.    Orders Ireland to bear the costs.
in Case C-67/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                              (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —
Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List
                   of sites — Site information)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2001/C 289/01)                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 September 2001
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          in Case C-71/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-67/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Wainwright and P. Stancanelli) v Ireland (Agent:              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
M.A. Buckley, assisted by, H.A. Whelehan and A.M. Collins)                Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —
— application for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to           Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List
the Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first                                  of sites — Site information)
subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                                           (2001/C 289/02)
of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together
with the information on each site required by the second                                      (Language of the case: German)
subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and                                       in the European Court Reports)
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given           In Case C-71/99: Commission of the European Communities
a judgment on 11 September 2001, in which it:                             (Agents: G. zur Hausen and P. Stancanelli) v Federal Republic


title: Case C-59/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 February 2016 — The Shirtmakers BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 February 2016 — The Shirtmakers BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-59/16)
   (2016/C 145/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Shirtmakers BV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Should Article 32(1)(e)(i) of the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘cost of transport’ should be understood to mean the amounts charged by the actual carriers of the imported goods, even where those carriers have not charged those amounts directly to the buyer of the imported goods but to another operator who has concluded the contracts of carriage with actual carriers on behalf of the buyer of the imported goods, and who has charged the buyer higher amounts in connection with his efforts in arranging the transport?


title: Case T-163/01: Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez Escanilla against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 275/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.9.2001
The applicant goes on to argue that the Commission erred in                     —     to assign to the unit in Directorate A of DG INFSO
applying Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council (1) to                            responsible for telecommunications the duties of
the situation in this case. It submits that Combus has neither                        organising and managing the internet infrastructures
a ‘tariff obligation’ nor an ‘obligation to operate’, and that the                    which the applicant carried out in his capacity as
company does not provide a public service. The regulation is                          advisor;
not applicable to Combus and the State aid granted to Combus
does not come with the scope of that regulation.                                —     to abolish his duties as advisor;
In the contested decision, the Commission proceeded on the                      —     to transfer him in due course to another Directorate
basis that the aid for Combus is restructuring aid. Against this,                     General by way of redeployment; and
the applicant argues that the aid granted is not restructuring
aid, but rather an operating subsidy, and that at no time was a                 —     to transfer him in the interim as advisor ad personam
restructuring plan submitted for any of the three subsidies                           at Directorate A of DG INFSO.
granted in total. Further, it is a condition of the framework
provisions that aid recipients must contribute significantly to           —     annul the implied decision rejecting a number of adminis-
the restructuring programme using their own means from                          trative complaints lodged by the applicant on 4 and
external financing, and it is, according to the applicant, obvious              19 December 2000, and on 19 January 2001, against the
that Combus did not itself make any contribution.                               decisions of 1 December.
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
So far as Article 73 EC is concerned, the applicant submits
inter alia that neither the Member States nor the Commission
can invoke Article 73 EC in order to legitimise aid for the
transport industry or transport objectives which cannot be                Pleas in law and main arguments
regarded as being compatible with Article 87 EC.
                                                                          —     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
The applicant concludes by arguing that the Commission has                      assessment;
infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality,
has failed to meet its obligation to provide reasons, and has             —     manifestly inadequate reasons for the contested acts;
committed essential procedural errors, for instance through its
use of fundamentally flawed facts in support of the decision.             —     infringement of the decision of 26 July 2000
                                                                                implementing ‘peer review’, as set out in the memor-
                                                                                andum of 13 September 2000 from the Secretary General
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on
                                                                                to the Directors General and Heads of Service;
    action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in
    the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and
    inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1969(I), p. 276).        —     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                                officials;
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Christopher Wilkin-
  son against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-159/01)
                                                                          Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez
                                                                          Escanilla against the Commission of the European Com-
                         (2001/C 275/28)                                                               munities
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                  (Case T-163/01)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (2001/C 275/29)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Christopher
Wilkinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert                                   (Language of the case: French)
Lucas, lawyer.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez
—     annul the decisions of 1 December 2000 of the Director              Escanilla, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
      General of DG INFSO:                                                and Véronique Peere, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.9.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucac-
                                                                          cioni, represented by Mauro Cimino.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 September
      2000 not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 in the
      1999 promotions procedure;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order compensation for biological and non-material
                                                                                damage, caused by the defendant between 1967 and
                                                                                1990, irrespective of (or under) Article 73 of the Staff
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Regulations, as a result of the inexcusable fault of the
                                                                                institution, which thus incurs liability, inasmuch as it:
The applicant challenges the decision not to promote him to
Grade A4 in the 1999 promotions procedure.                                      —     caused continuous and culpable bodily harm to the
                                                                                applicant, in that it obliged him to work, giving
                                                                                untrue reassurances, in an environment contamin-
In support of his application, the applicant claims that the                          ated by asbestos, knowing full well that asbestos is
appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment                         harmful even for persons not at risk
by comparing the circumstances of the applicant against the
average staff report results for the directorate to which he was
posted. Moreover, the decision is allegedly based on the sole                   —     deliberately attempted to harm the applicant, at the
factor that his Directorate General only had available three                          risk of killing him, which is mentioned only to
posts for promotion to Grade A4 for 1999. Since he was listed                         support the allegation of harm
4th by his Directorate General, the appointing authority
automatically and without examining his merits in comparison
with those of the other candidates eligible for promotion,                      —     deliberately attempted against the applicant’s safety
removed the applicant’s chances of being promoted in that                             at work, by seriously neglecting safety
year.
                                                                                amounting to ITL 7 000 000 000, by analogy with the
The applicant pleads:                                                           amounts ordered in respect of each of the victims
                                                                                (totalling some ITL 1 000 000 000) in the judgment in
                                                                                Case 4840/96 of 5 July 1996 delivered by the Pretura
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                      Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin)
                                                                                and the compensation ordered for each of the victims
—     breach of the principle that officials should have reason-                of the ‘Cermis’ cable car disaster, namely
      able career prospects;                                                    ITL 4 000 000 000.
—     manifest error of assessment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
      discrimination.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant in the present case, the same applicant as in
Action brought on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni                      Case T-165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission (1)? was awarded a
    against Commission of the European Communities                        rate of total permanent invalidity of 130% and was paid the
                                                                          capital at the rate of 100 % under Article 12 of the Joint Rules
                                                                          and compensation at the rate of 30 %, under Article 12 of the
                        (Case T-164/01)                                   same rules. The applicant could no longer, apparently, avail
                                                                          himself of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, since in 1985
                        (2001/C 275/30)                                   the defendant decided that the cumulated total under the two
                                                                          articles could not exceed 100 %. The applicant now seeks
                                                                          compensation for biological and non-material damage suffered
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        during the period from 1967 to 1990 irrespective of (or under)
                                                                          Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, attributable to the conduct
                                                                          of the defendant for the way in which it dealt with the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 problems arising from the presence of asbestos in the Berlay-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                mont building.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 May 1998 in Case C-106/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, supported by Federal Republic of Germany, by Council of the European Union and by Kingdom of Denmark, v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the European Parliament (Community action programme to combat social exclusion - Funding - Legal basis)

text:
C 234/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.7.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
                                                                          30 October 1989 and as a social advantage within the
                       of 12 May 1998
                                                                          meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-85/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht): María Martínez Sala                 movement for workers within the Community.
                     v Freistaat Bayern (1)
(Articles 8a, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty Ð Definition of
worker' Ð Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð                2. It is for the referring court to determine whether a
Child-raising allowance Ð Definition of family benefit'                  person such as the appellant in the main proceedings
Ð Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð                           comes within the scope ratione personae of Article 48
Definition of social advantage' Ð Requirement of                         of the EC Treaty and of Regulation No 1612/68 or of
      possession of a residence permit or authorisation)                  Regulation No 1408/71.
                        (98/C 234/06)
                                                                     3. Community law precludes a Member State from
               (Language of the case: German)                             requiring nationals of other Member States authorised
                                                                          to reside in its territory to produce a formal residence
                                                                          permit issued by the national authorities in order to
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             receive a child-raising allowance, whereas that
          published in the European Court Reports)                        Member State's own nationals are only required to be
                                                                          permanently or ordinarily resident in that Member
                                                                          State.
In Case C-85/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht
                                                                     (1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
(Higher Social Court of Bavaria) (Germany), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between María Martínez Sala and Freistaat Bayern
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3(1) and 4(1)(h)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230 of 13.8.1983, p. 6), as                                           of 12 May 1998
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
30 October 1989 (OJ 1989 L 331 of 13.8.1983, p. 1), and              in Case C-106/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68               Northern Ireland, supported by Federal Republic of
of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                Germany, by Council of the European Union and by
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968               Kingdom of Denmark, v Commission of the European
(II), p. 475) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                Communities, supported by the European Parliament (1)
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              (Community action programme to combat social exclusion
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                                   Ð Funding Ð Legal basis)
D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G.
                                                                                (98/C 234/07)
Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,
in which it has ruled:                                                               (Language of the case: English)
1. A benefit such as the child-raising allowance provided
     for by the Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz, which is                 In Case C-106/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain             Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted by
     objective criteria, without any individual and                  Derrick Wyatt), supported by Federal Republic of
     discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which           Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke), by
     is intended to meet family expenses, falls within the           Council of the European Union (Agents: Jill Aussant and
     scope ratione materiae of Community law as a family             FeÂlix van Craeyenest) and by Kingdom of Denmark
     benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of                (Agents: Peter Biering and Jùrgen Molde) v Commission
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June                  of the European Communities (Agents: Maria Patakia and
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to           Peter Oliver), supported by the European Parliament
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               (Agents: Christian Pennera and Auke Baas) Ð application
     members of their families moving within the                     for annulment of the decision or decisions referred to in
     Community, as amended and updated by Council                    the Commission's press release of 23 January 1996 (IP/96/
     Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as                  67) announcing certain grants for European projects
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/5
seeking to overcome social exclusion Ð the Court,                    Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the same Directorate,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.                 and Claude Chavance, Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen                     same Directorate, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho              and Northern Ireland, represented by John E. Collins Ð
de Almeida (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,              application for annulment of the Joint Action of 4 March
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;           1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3
G. Tesauro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,             of the Treaty on European Union on airport transit
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,              arrangements (96/197/JAI) (OJ 1996 L 63 of 19.3.1996,
in which it:                                                         p. 8) Ð the Court (Chamber), composed of: G. C.
                                                                     Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
                                                                     Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Presidents of
1. Annuls the decision referred to in the Commission's
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     press release of 23 January 1996 (IP/96/67)
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
     announcing certain grants for European projects
                                                                     Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
     seeking to overcome social exclusion;
                                                                     K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
2. Declares that the annulment of the abovementioned                 Registrar Ð has given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in
     decision shall not affect the validity of payments made         which it:
     or undertakings given under the contracts in issue;
                                                                     1. Dismisses the application;
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs;                                               2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          to pay the costs;
4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the                       3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French
     Kingdom of Denmark, the Council of the European                      Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Union and the European Parliament to bear their own                  Northern Ireland and the Parliament to bear their
     costs.                                                               own costs.
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.                                           (1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 12 May 1998                                                      of 12 May 1998
                                                                     in Case C-367/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-170/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     the Efeteio Ð Athinon): Alexandros Kefalas and Others v
Communities, supported by the European Parliament v
                                                                     Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State), Organismos Ikonomikis
Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                     Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE), intervener
Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic and the United
                                                                                Athinaiki Khartopiia AE and Others (1)
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Company law Ð Public limited liability company in
(Act of the Council Ð Joint action regarding airport
                                                                     financial difficulties Ð Increase in the capital of the
                  transit visas Ð Legal basis)
                                                                     company by administrative decision Ð Abusive exercise of
                         (98/C 234/08)                                   a right arising from a provision of Community law)
                                                                                (98/C 234/09)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                            published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-170/96: Commission of the European                         In Case C-367/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, supported             of the EC Treaty from the Efeteio Ð Athinon for a
by the European Parliament, represented by Johann                    preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Schoo, Head of Division in the Legal Service, and JoseÂ-             court between Alexandros Kefalas and Others and
Luis Rufas Quintana, v Council of the European Union,                Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State), Organismos Ikonomikis
represented by Julian Schutte, Director of the Legal                 Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE), intervener
Service, and Michael Bishop, supported by the Kingdom                Athinaiki Khartopiia AE and Others, on the interpretation
of Denmark, represented by Peter Biering, the French                 of Article 25 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC
Republic, represented initially by Catherine de Salins,              of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards
Head of Subdirectorate in the Legal Affairs Directorate of           which, for the protection of the interests of members and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then by Kareen Rispal-              others, are required by Member States of companies


title: Case T-218/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/26

         Action brought on 18 April 2013 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO)
   (Case T-218/13)
   2013/C 189/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2013 in Case R 2455/2011-1, whereby it rejected the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark No 8 481 863‘Cuétara Maria ORO’ for ‘Preserved frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; milk products’ (Class 29) and ‘Coffee, tea, cocoa, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; sauces (condiments); biscuits’ (Class 30), which should consequently be registered by OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cuétara Maria ORO’ — Application for registration of Community trademark No 8 481 863 for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘ORO’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Action brought on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-86/95)

text:
No C 159/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 6 . 95
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                                    health problems affecting intra-Community trade
                                                                                in meat products and amending Directive
                                                                                64/43 3/EEC (4), and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992
In view of the binding nature of the third paragraph of                              introducing Community measures for the control of
Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC                           avian influenza ( 5 ),
Treaty, the Member States are required to adopt the
measures necessary to give effect to the Directives addressed
to them before the end of the period appointed for that                          the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
purpose. That period ended on 31 December 1992 without                           obligations under the EC Treaty and under the above
the requisite provisions having been adopted by Spain.                           Directives ;
(0    OJ No  L 183 , 29 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .                                 2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                                costs .
(2 )  OJ No  L 393 , 30.   11 . 1989, pp . 1 , 13 , and 18 .
(-5 ) OJ No  L 156 , 21 . 6 . 1990 , pp . 9 and 14 .
(4 )  OJ No  L 196 , 26 . 7 . 1990 , p . 1 .
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                             C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on
                                                                             1 January 1993 .
Action brought on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of                         f1) OJ No   L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of                     (2) OJ No   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41
                                 Germany                                     (3) OJ No   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69
                                                                             (4) OJ No   L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-86/95 )
                                                                             (5) OJ No   L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992, p . 1 .
                              ( 95/C 159/11 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-93/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/12 )
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      time limits the measures necessary to comply with:                     An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                             before the Court of Justice on 27 March 1995 by the
      — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
         concerning the animal health conditions governing                   Antonio Caeiro, Legal Advisor, acting as Agent, with an
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
          and products ( ! ),                                                Kremlis , of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November
          1990 concerning public health and animal problems                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          affecting the production and placing on the market
          of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (2 ),                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period the measures necessary to implement in full
      — Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991                            Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990
          amending and consolidating Directive 64/433/EEC                        amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts
          on health problems affecting intra-Community trade                     and Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as
          in fresh meat to extend it to the production and                       regards the scope of those Directives, the Portuguese
          marketing of fresh meat ( 3 ),                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
      — Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992
          amending and updating Directive 77/99/EEC on                       — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case T-444/04: Action brought on 5 November 2004 by France Télécom against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/26

         Action brought on 5 November 2004 by France Télécom against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-444/04)
   (2005/C 31/49)
   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 5 November 2004 by France Télécom, established in Paris, represented by NA. Gosset-Grainville and S. Hautbourg, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2004)3060, delivered by the Commission on 2 August 2004, concerning the State aid paid by France to France Télécom;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant in the present case are identical to those put forward by the applicant in Case T-425/04.


title: Case T-117/99: Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez Paramo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
17.7.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 204/39
Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Associazione delle                      The applicant emphasises that, according to the Decision on
Cantine Sociali Venete against the European Ombudsman                      public access to Commission documents, recourse to the
                  and the European Parliament                              Ombudsman is one of the ‘means of redress that arc available’
                                                                           against a European institution’s refusal of a request for access.
                                                                           His activity was therefore in no way comparable with a mere
                         (Case T-103/99)                                   recommendation or an opinion of any other institution.
                         (1999/C 204/96)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Ombudsman and the European
Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 27 April 1999 by Associazione
delle Cantine Sociali Venete, represented by Ivone Cacciavillani
and Antonio Cimino, both of the Venice and Padua Bar, with                 Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain              Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I.                                                                          pean Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (Case T-117/99)
— Declare that the European Ombudsman unlawfully failed
     to act, within the meaning of Article 175 of the EC Treaty,                                   (1999/C 204/97)
     in relation to the applicant’s request presented (with other
     requests) on 3 June 1997 (received on 9 June 1997) for
     intervention in a case of refusal by the Commission of
     access to documents.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— Order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                           Paramo, Jean-Marc Venineaux, Marc Luyckx, of Brussels, Ron
                                                                           Moys, of Kent, the United Kingdom, Ines Van Lierde, Jean-Paul
The applicant association challenges the Ombudsman’s dis-                  Richard, Richard Harding, Myrian Izquierdo, Helmut Weber,
missal of its request for intervention concerning a case of                Mairead Buckley, Anna Sodro, Jean-Martial Marenne, Walter
refusal by the Commission of access to documents concerning                Marchand Lutwin, Carmelo Calamia, of Brussels, Anastassia
the procedure followed by the Commission in determining the                Vakalopoulou, of Luxembourg, Luigi Malinconico, Thérèse
compulsory distillation of table wines for the year 1993/1994.             Nibelle, Michael Horgan, Maria Jadot, Kader Chaffi, Hervé
                                                                           Lefeuvre, of Brussels, Marcello Magliulo, of Longwy, France,
                                                                           Bernard Bertrand, Marc-Ivan Miot, Catherine Cloquette, Nicola
In support of its claims, the applicant argues that there has              Pellegrino, Vassiliki Pechlivanidou, of Brussels and Barry
been infringement of:                                                      Stephen Magee, of Gonderange, Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                           Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— Article 3 of Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
     European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations                Rheinsheim.
     and general conditions governing the performance of the
     Ombudsman’s duties;
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
— Article 138e of the EC Treaty; and
                                                                           — annul the procedure and tests for the internal competition
— Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 Feb-                        COM/T/A/2/98 for the appointment as established officials
     ruary 1994 on public access to the Commission docu-                       of category A temporary agents, with a view to creating a
     ments.                                                                    reserve list of principal administrators. administrators and
                                                                               assistant administrators;
In particular, the applicant argues that the Ombudsman has
not fulfilled his function in this case and, despite the long time         — annul the procedure and tests for the internal competition
which elapsed and the notice sent to him to which he did not                   COM/T/B/2/98 for the appointment as established officials
even reply, has failed to adopt any of the decisions and/or                    of category B temporary agents, with a view to creating a
initiatives which were his responsibility and which were                       reserve list of principal assistants, assistants, and deputy
requested by the applicant.                                                    assistants;
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/40              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   treatment and proportionality, non-discrimination and
                                                                           abuse of power. According to the applicants, the appoint-
                                                                           ing authority organised different written tests, at different
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            times, and under conditions which were not identical;
                                                                        — infringement of Article 1(1)(b) and 5(5) of Annex III to the
The applicants, with one exception, are all category A or                  Staff Regulations, of notices of competitions COM/
category B temporary agents who were recruited pursuant to                 T/A/2/98 and COM/T/B/2/98, and of the principles of
Article 2(a) and/or Article 2(b) of the rules applicable to other          having due regard for the welfare of officials, equality of
agents, and entered internal competition COM/T/A/2/98 or                   treatment, legitimate expectations and good adminis-
COM/T/B/2/98.                                                              tration. The applicants maintain that the competition
                                                                           procedure implemented for the appointment as established
By a letter dated 3 March 1999, the applicants (with one                   officials of category A and category B temporary agents,
exception) were informed that they had failed to pass the                  did not fulfil the applicants’ legitimate expectations either
written tests. By a letter dated 23 March 1999, the head of                as regards the content of the examinations or the method
unit of DG IX informed the applicants that, as they had not                of marking used, in particular in the context of the
been admitted to the oral test of the competition, their                   necessary balance between an administration and its
contracts as temporary agents would expire on 30 June 1999,                agents, and also taking account of the interests of the
as previously agreed.                                                      service. The appointing authority in fact wished to decrease
                                                                           the number of its employees, in breach of rules and
The applicants rely upon                                                   principles which require the drawing up, in so far as
                                                                           possible, of a list of suitable candidates including at least
— infringement of Article 30 and Annex III of the Staff                    twice as many names as there are posts available through
    Regulations and in particular Article 1(1)(e), breach of               the competition, and to ensure the anonymity of the
    general principles of law, including the principles of equal           written tests, and this too was an abuse of power.


title: Case T-373/15: Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/17

         Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission
   (Case T-373/15)
   (2015/C 337/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ja zum Nürburgring e.V. (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Frey, M. Rudolph and S. Eggerath, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part Commission Decision C(2014) 3634 final of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 granted by Germany to the Nürburgring;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 9 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging incorrect findings of the relevant facts of the case
               The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 108 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 107 TFEU and Article 17 TEU in so far as it did not perform its duty under the law on State aid to keep State aid under review and, in its decision, incorrectly represented material aspects of the facts of the case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the confirmation of the financing
               The applicant claims in this regard that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the buyer of the assets sold under the tender process provided a confirmation of the financing from one of the financial partners.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU, Article 4(4) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and manifest errors of assessment
               In connection with the third plea in law, the applicant claims inter alia that the restrictions of competition market-wide caused by the unlawful State aid were perpetuated by the sale of the assets. Furthermore, the obligation to make restitution ought to have extended on the basis of economic continuity to the buyer of the assets sold under the tender process. The applicant adds that the sale constituted new State aid in favour of the buyer.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU and manifest errors of assessment
               In connection with this plea in law, the applicant claims, in essence, that the sale process was not carried out by a transparent and non-discriminatory tender process and that therefore the assets at issue were not sold at market price.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 through negative certification under the law on State aid
               In connection with this plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 in so far as it did not classify the assets sold within the course of the tender process as new State aid and did not initiate the formal examination procedure. The applicant adds that the Commission cannot have failed to have had doubts as to the compatibility of that State aid with the internal market.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons
               The applicant submits that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as the reasons are either not given or not adequately given for the principal considerations on which the contested decision is based.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights
               In connection with this plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its procedural rights by not considering its submissions.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision that the sale of assets did not constitute new State aid infringed the applicant’s procedural rights
               In connection with this plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its procedural rights and, in particular, essential formal requirements in so far as, despite the applicant’s formal complaint, it decided that the sale of the assets following the tender process to the buyer was not to be classified as State aid. By its decision, the Commission implicitly declined to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration
               Lastly, the applicant claims that the Commission neither investigated all of the relevant aspects independently nor took the aspects of the case provided by the applicants into consideration in an appropriate manner.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case F-50/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2012 — Ciora v Commission (Civil Service — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/198/10 — Non-admission to the competition — Action — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2012 — Ciora v Commission
   (Case F-50/12)
   (Civil Service - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/198/10 - Non-admission to the competition - Action - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 46/64
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cătălin Ion Ciora (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Bondoc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Civil Service — Action for annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/198/10 Heads of unit with Romanian citizenship (AD9) not to accept the applicant’s application.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Mr Ciora is to bear his own costs.


C 21/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   24.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-308/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-461/02 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/58)                                                       (2004/C 21/61)
By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of          By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-308/02: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-461/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                    European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-48/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/59)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/62)
By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 26 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-342/02:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            from the register of Case C-48/03: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-370/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-190/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/63)
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-370/02: Commission of the                By order of 29 September 2003 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-190/03: Portuguese Republic v
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-195/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/9

         Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)
   (Case T-195/12)
   2012/C 209/14
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nuna International BV (Erp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Alpera Plazas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. (Bremen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 476/2011-1; and

               —

               Grant the contested community trade mark application for all the goods designated in the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nuna’, for goods in classes 12, 18, 20, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 6239743

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark application No 6218879 of the word mark ‘NANU’; Community trade mark No 6218945 of the word mark ‘NANA’ for goods and services in classes 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34 and 35; Community trade mark No 6217814 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 35; German trade mark No 36647710 of the word mark ‘NANU’; German trade mark No 39804075 of the word mark ‘NANA’; German trade mark No 1054703 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’; International trade mark registration No 557176 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-22/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration by the examiner — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to rule)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face)
      (Case T-22/09) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration by the examiner - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to rule)
      (2010/C 161/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein, later by C. Jenewein and G. Schneider, Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1299/2006-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional mark showing a panda face in black, white and red.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Holds that there is no need to rule on the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0003

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court on a case pending before the Reykjavík District Court — Alda Viggósdóttir v Iceland Post (Íslandspóstur hf.) (Case E-3/01)

Official Journal C 237 , 23/08/2001 P. 0004 - 0004

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court on a case pending before the Reykjavík District Court - Alda Viggósdóttir v Iceland Post (Íslandspóstur hf.)(Case E-3/01)(2001/C 237/04)An Advisory Opinion is to be sought from the EFTA Court regarding the following:1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC to be interpreted to the effect that the conversion of a State-owned entity into a wholly State-owned limited company constitutes a transfer within the meaning of that provision?2. Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC to be interpreted as prohibiting the provision, in an employment contract which is concluded in connection with a transfer within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Directive, of less advantageous terms regarding termination of employment as compared with those enjoyed by the employee prior to the date of the transfer?


title: Case C-156/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesas — Latvia) — ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA v ‘Swedbank’ AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/47/EC — Scope — Definition of ‘financial collateral’, ‘relevant financial obligations’ and ‘provision’ of financial collateral — Whether it is possible to enforce financial collateral notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceeding — Current account agreement including a financial collateral clause)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesas — Latvia) — ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA v ‘Swedbank’ AS
   (Case C-156/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Scope - Definition of ‘financial collateral’, ‘relevant financial obligations’ and ‘provision’ of financial collateral - Whether it is possible to enforce financial collateral notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceeding - Current account agreement including a financial collateral clause))
   (2017/C 014/06)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA

      Defendant:‘Swedbank’ AS

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements is to be interpreted as conferring on the taker of financial collateral, such as the collateral at issue in the main proceedings, whereby monies deposited in a bank account are pledged to the bank to cover all the account holder’s debts to the bank, the right to enforce the collateral, notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceedings in respect of the collateral provider, only if, first, the monies covered by the collateral were deposited in the account in question before the commencement of those proceedings or those monies were deposited on the day of commencement, the bank having proved that it was not aware, nor should have been aware, that those proceedings had commenced and, second, the account holder was prevented from disposing of those monies after they had been deposited in that account.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-120/99: Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy — Fisheries — Bluefin tuna — Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 — Statement of reasons — Total allowable catches (TACs) — Allocation of TACs among Member States — Principle of relative stability — Determination of basic data — Complex economic situation — Discretion — International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas — Accession of the Community — Impact on the allocation of TACs to Member States — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
C 369/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.12.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 25 October 2001
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
in Case C-120/99: Italian Republic v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
                                                                           in Case C-276/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(Common agricultural policy — Fisheries — Bluefin tuna —
Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 — Statement of reasons —
Total allowable catches (TACs) — Allocation of TACs
among Member States — Principle of relative stability —                    (ECSC — State aid granted to iron and steel undertakings
Determination of basic data — Complex economic situation                   — Application for the recovery of aid contrary to Community
— Discretion — International Convention for the Conser-                    law — Obligations of the Member States — Failure to fulfil
vation of Atlantic Tunas — Accession of the Community —                    obligations — Procedure initiated when the failure has
Impact on the allocation of TACs to Member States —                                               exhausted its effects)
                 Principle of non-discrimination)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/03)
                          (2001/C 369/02)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                           (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-120/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by P.G. Ferri and D. Del Gaizo) v Council of the European
Union (Agents: M. Sims and I. Dı́ez Parra) supported by                    In Case C-276/99: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) by French                   initially by W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski, and, sub-
Republic (Agents: J.-F. Dobelle, K. Rispal-Bellanger and                   sequently, by W.-D. Plessing, assisted by R. Bierwagen) v
C. Vasak) and by Commission of the European Communities                    Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
(Agents: T. van Rijn and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application              schitz and J.M. Flett) — application for the annulment of
for the annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC)                  Commission Decision 1999/597/ECSC of 21 April 1999 in
No 49/1999 of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain stocks                  proceedings under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty concerning
of highly migratory fish, the total allowable catches for 1999,            State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Neue
their distribution in quotas to Member States and certain                  Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH (OJ 1999 L 230, p. 4) — the
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1999 L 13,                   Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
p. 54) and of the table relating to bluefin tuna annexed to that           President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet
regulation — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,              and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward,                      L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
A. La Pergola and C.W..A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;                 judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it:
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Admin-
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October
2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/597/ECSC of 21 April
                                                                                1999 in proceedings under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the             2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
      costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
( 1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Case T-190/08: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — CHEMK and KF v Council (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan and Russia — Calculation of the export price — Profit margin — Price undertaking — Injury — Causal link — Complaint — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/14

         Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — CHEMK and KF v Council
   (Case T-190/08) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan and Russia - Calculation of the export price - Profit margin - Price undertaking - Injury - Causal link - Complaint - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 355/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia); and Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by P. Vander Schueren, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by J. P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently by G. Berrisch, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, and subsequently by H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6), in so far as it affects the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
C 171/12        EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  17.7.2002
                                                                III
                                                              (Notices)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                        (2002/C 171/09)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities is publishing in the Official Journal of the European
         Communities C 171 A of 17 July 2002 the following open competition:
         English edition
         CJ/LA/21 (Interpreters of English mother-tongue)
         To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of the European
         Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
         The final date for receipt of applications is 27 September 2002.


               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/1

         2009/C 244/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

      OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

      OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

      OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


11.4.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of                Designation of a President of Chambers and assignment of
            Justice of the European Communities                        Judges to Chambers of the Court of First Instance
                         (98/C 113/01)                                                   (98/C 113/04)
Following his appointment as Advocate-General at the              At its plenary meeting of 10 March 1998, the Court of
Court of Justice of the European Communities by                   First Instance, following the departure from office of
Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the         President A. Saggio and the entry into office of Judge P.
Member States of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Antonio                 Mengozzi, decided as follows:
Saggio took the oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  For the period from 10 March 1998, President B.
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                  Vesterdorf shall preside over the First Chamber and the
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition, and Mr Mengozzi,
                                                                  Judge, is assigned to the First Chamber, the First Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition.
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of First
                                                                  Accordingly, the composition of the Chambers decided
           Instance of the European Communities
                                                                  upon on 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 14) shall be
                         (98/C 113/02)                            amended as follows:
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of First          First Chamber
Instance of the European Communities by Decision of the
representatives of the Governments of the Member States           Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr
of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Paolo Mengozzi took the               Mengozzi, Judges;
oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 25.
                                                                  Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Bellamy, Mr Moura Ramos,
                                                                  Mr Pirrung and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                  Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
Election of the President of the Court of First Instance of
                  the European Communities                        Mr Azizi, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                         (98/C 113/03)                            Mr Moura Ramos, Mr Jaeger and Mr Mengozzi, Judges.
At the meeting on 4 March 1998, the Judges of the Court           For cases in which the written procedure was completed
of First Instance of the European Communities elected, in         and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed
accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr           before 10 March 1998 by those Chambers in their
B. Vesterdorf as President of the Court of First Instance         previous composition, but without President Saggio, they
for the period from 4 March 1998 up to 31 August 1998.            shall continue to sit with that composition.


title: Case C-625/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/12

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-625/10)
   2011/C 103/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, as a result of the inadequacy of the measures adopted to implement the first railway package, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under:

                           —

                           Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Directive 91/440/EEC, as amended, (1) and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC; (2)

                           —

                           Article 6(2) to (5) of Directive 2001/14/EC;

                           —

                           Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC;

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission relies on two pleas in support of its action.
   First, it criticises the defendant for failing to comply with all the obligations laid down in the first railway package, which requires not only the separation of the entities responsible for operating rail transport services (in France, the SNCF) from those responsible for managing the infrastructure (in France, RFF) but also that the ‘essential’ functions of the allocation of railway capacity, the setting of charges for the use of the infrastructure and the issuing of licences be carried out by independent bodies. However, the SNCF has responsibility for certain essential functions relating to the allocation of train paths which it performs via the Direction des Circulations Ferroviaires (DCF). That specialist service is not legally independent of the SNCF and nor is it independent in terms of organisation or decision making.
   Second, the Commission submits that the national legislation does not transpose correctly or fully the requirements under Directive 2001/14/EC concerning the establishment of a performance scheme relating to the charges made for access to the railway infrastructure. A further difficulty with the French legislation is that it fails to provide sufficient incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25).

      (2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).


title: Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-394/95)

text:
No C 31 / 16          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
Action brought on 8 December 1995 by the Commission of                       the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of
         the European Communities against Ireland                            insurance undertakings ( 1 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                       ( Case C-387/95 )                                     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
                                                                             the said Directive;
                           ( 96/C 31 /32 )
                                                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, and
Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal Service , acting as               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               in Case C-387/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit laid down by the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner,                      Directive expired on 1 January 1994 .
Kirchberg.
                                                                       H OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 7 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) See p. 16 of this Official Journal .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that by failing to notify the laws , regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 91 /674/EEC (') of 19 December 1991 on the
     annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance
     undertakings or by failing to adopt the measures                  Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission
     necessary to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its               of the European Communities against Ireland
     obligations under that Directive;                                                             Case C-394/95
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                                                ( 96/C 31 /34 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 1 5 December 1 995
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall            by the Commission of the European Communities,
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, and
Member State , carries by implication an obligation on the             Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal Service, acting as
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January               office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner .
1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission .                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 7 .
                                                                        1 . declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Council Directive 91 /371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 ( x ) on
                                                                              the implementation of the Agreement between the
                                                                              European Economic Community and the Swiss
                                                                              Confederation concerning direct insurance other than
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission                          life assurance or by failing to adopt the measures
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            necessary to comply with the said Directive, Ireland has
                               Belgium                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive ;
                        ( Case C-393/95 )
                                                                        2 . order Ireland to pay the costs.
                            ( 96/C 31 /33 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice on 15 December 1995 by the
                                                                        Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, under which a directive shall
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
 Dimitrios Gouloussis , acting as Agent, with an address for            Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
 service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz,            Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
 Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                        down in the Directive . That period expired on 4 July 1993
                                                                        without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           comply with the Directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                        the Commission .
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt, alternatively to
     communicate to the Commission , within the prescribed
                                                                         (') OJ No L 205 , 27. 7 . 1991 , p . 48 .
      timelimit the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to comply fully with
      Council Directive 91 /674/EEC of 10 December 1991 on


title: Case T-686/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Tomato processing sector — Aid to producer organisations — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Proportionality — Res judicata)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-686/14) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Tomato processing sector - Aid to producer organisations - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Proportionality - Res judicata))
   (2016/C 106/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Galluzzo, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458 of 9 July 2014 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), in so far as it concerns the Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


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