title: Action brought on 28 April 1995 by X against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-109/95)

text:
No C 174/8         | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 7 . 95
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                  undermine the objectives of the Community's policy on
                                                                        improved access to Community documents . Thus, if the
2.  the costs are reserved.
                                                                        Commission invokes an exception to the general access
                                                                        to its documents , it must establish the ' imperative
                                                                        reasons ' for which the conditions laid down in the
                                                                        exception clause are fulfilled, and deal with the
                                                                        particularities of the case and with the contents of the
                                                                        documents to which access is required .
                                                                        The applicant states that the Commission invoked two
Action brought on 18 April 1995 by WWF UK (World Wide                   reasons for its refusal to grant access to the documents in
Fund for Nature ) against the Commission of the European                question : its interest in the confidentiality of its
                         Communities
                                                                        proceedings and the protection of the public interest, in
                      ( Case T-105/95 )                                 particular, the ability of the Commission to conduct
                        ( 95/C 174/ 14 )                                infringement proceedings . However, the Commission
                                                                        did not provide any ' imperative reasons ' for which the
                                                                        disclosure of the documents in question would affect the
              (Language of the case: English)                           protection of its interest in the confidentiality of its
                                                                        proceedings ; and , as regards the second reason, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission did not deal with the particularities of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       case : its reasoning consists entirely of general statements
Instance of the European Communities on 1 8 April 1995 by               which, if correct, would apply to all infringement
WWF UK ( World Wide Fund for Nature ), represented by Dr                proceedings . The applicant maintains therefore that the
Georg M. Berrisch, with an address for service in                       Commission wrongly invoked the exception clause in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk et Prum, Avenue                      the Code of conduct and that, accordingly, the contested
Guillaume 13 B, L-1651 Luxembourg.                                      decision constitutes the most extensive breach possible
                                                                        for the applicant's right of access to Commission
                                                                        documents .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    2 . Insufficient reasoning — Infringement of Article 190 of
— annul the decision of the European Commission                         the EC Treaty
    contained in a letter of 2 February 1995 from the
    Secretary-General of the European Communities to
    counsel for the applicant by which the Secretary-General            The applicant states that Article 190 requires that the
    confirmed the refusal of the Directors-General of DG XI             Community institutions must provide reasoning for
    and DG XVI to grant the applicant access to                         their decisions . The main purpose of this provision is to
    Commission documents relating to the examination of                 make judicial review of such decisions possible . In this
    the Mullaghmore project, and in particular to the                   respect, the duty to provide sufficient reasoning serves to
    examination of whether structural funds may be used                 protect the rights of defence of those concerned by the
                                                                        decision .
    for the project, and
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these                        The applicant emphasizes that the reasoning of the
    proceedings .                                                       contested decision does not deal with the particularities
                                                                        of the case . It consists only of broad statements and it
                                                                        does not suffice to justify the conclusion that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Commission was entitled to refuse to make public the
                                                                        documents in question .
The applicant submits that the contested decision must be
annulled for two reasons :
1 . Violation of the ' Code of conduct concerning public
    access to Commission and Council documents ' ( the
    ' Code of conduct') and of Decision 94/90/ECSC , EC,
    Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to                  Action brought on 28 April 1995 by X against the
    Commission documents ( the 'adopting Decision ').                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-109/95 )
    The applicant maintains that the Code of conduct and
    the adopting Decision are legally binding on the                                          ( 95/C 174/ 15
    Commission and that they impose upon it an obligation
    to grant, to the widest extent possible, access to its                           (Language of the case: English)
    documents . This obligation is the corollary of a right
    enjoyed by natural and legal persons in the Community.
    The exception clause in the Code of conduct must be             An action against the Commission of the European
    interpreted strictly and its application may not                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 7. 95            LEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 174/9
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1995 by               The applicant submits that:
X, represented by Mr Drs. P. Bergkamp, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at c/o Ms Ruth Bleijerveld , Embassy
of the Netherlands, 5 , rue C. M. Spoo, L-2546                         ( a ) the measures decided in the judgment of 9 June 1994
Luxembourg.                                                                  necessarily include , under Article 1 76 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                             a decision as to the applicant's fitness without undue
                                                                             and unnecessary delay and without subjecting the
                                                                             applicant to any further medical examination ;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       ( b ) the defendant has all information and data about the
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European                       applicant's fitness that is necessary to make a
     Communities        signed    by Frans          de    Koster,            decision ;
     Director-General , Directorate-General of Personnel and
     Administration , dated 17 February 1995, confirming
     the decision of the defendant, signed by Frans de Koster,         (c ) the defendant has had an opportunity to examine the
     Director-General , Directorate-General of Personnel and                 applicant, who has fully cooperated with all tests and
     Administration, dated 4 November 1994 and the                           examinations that the defendant has required ;
     decision of the defendant, signed by Nicolas Hoffmann,
     Chef du Service Medical, Directorate-General of
     Personnel and Administration, dated 2 August 1994,                ( d ) the health status of the applicant today is irrelevant, in
                                                                             so far as the Commission must only make a decision
                                                                             based on the applicant 's fitness at the time of the
— annul the decision of the defendant, signed by Frans de                    medical examination in 1990;
     Koster , Director-General, Directorate-General of
     Personnel and Administration, dated 1 February 1995 ,
     denying the applicant's claims for compensation of                ( e ) the defendant has refused to compensate the applicant's
     damages caused by the defendant's requirement that the                  damages caused by the liver biopsy and the breach of
     applicant undergo a liver biopsy , and the defendant's                  confidentiality, in spite of the fact that the decision to
     breach of its duty to maintain the confidentiality of the               require that the applicant undergo a liver biopsy was
     applicant's medical and personal data ,                                 not made solely and exclusively by the specialist, but
                                                                             was made by the defendant itself, and the fact that the
                                                                             defendant physicians have breached their obligations to
— order the defendant to compensate all material and                         maintain confidentiality and that the applicant has
     non-material damages caused by this biopsy and the                      suffered material and non-material harm as a result of
     breach of confidentiality, and                                          these wrongful acts of the defendant.
— order the defendant to pay the costs of ( 1 ) the
     proceedings and ( 2 ) the applicant's lawyer's fees, in
     accordance with applicable law.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Action brought on 12 May 1995 by Friedel Borsch against
The applicant is the same as in case T-94/92, which has been            the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
judged by a judgment of 9 June 1 994, whereby the Court of                                the European Communities
First Instance has annulled the defendant's decision of
24 September 1991 and 3 July 1992, declaring that the                                          (Case T-120/95 )
applicant did not satisfy the requirement of physical fitness                                    ( 95 /C 174/ 16 )
laid down in Article 28 ( e ) of the Staff Regulations .
In 1990 , although the applicant had previously informed the                            (Language of the case: German)
defendant of a liver biopsy conducted in Spain, the
 Commission required a second liver biopsy, which resulted
 in confirming the results of the first one . As a complication         An action against the Council of the European Union and
 of the second biopsy, the applicant suffered a biliary                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
 peritonitis, severe pain and suffering and his life was in             before the Court of First Instance of the European
 danger . Furthermore , without the applicant's consent, a              Communities on 12 May 1995 by Friedel Borsch of
 physician of the Commission's medical service has informed             Wipperfiirth, Germany, represented by Bernd Meisterernst,
 various other persons of the results of the liver biopsy.              Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and
 Finally, by letter of 2 August 1 994 , the defendant invited the       Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte, Miinster, with an
 applicant to make an appointment for a 'new                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 pre-appointment medical examination '.                                 Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .


title: Case T-296/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission (Aid granted under the INTI programme — Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary — Errors of assessment)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-296/08) (1)

   (Aid granted under the INTI programme - Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary - Errors of assessment)
   2012/C 138/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented: initially by U.Claus and subsequently by S. Reichmann and L.-J- Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Simon, and subsequently S. Grünheid, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of the costs borne by the applicant in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of costs borne by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077 as regards expenses relating to headings B 9, B 10, B 37, B 38 and G 5.

               2.

               Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung to pay two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission is ordered to pay one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-276/97)

text:
C 295/ 18                   EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27 . 9 . 97
4. Is the policy adopted by a Member State of excluding                          incurred, or certain to be incurred but uncertain as
     all women during peace time and/or in preparation for                       to amount or as to the date on which they will
     war, from service as interoperable marines capable of                       arise ( Article 20 ( 1 )),
     being excluded from the ambit of Council Directive
     76/207/EEC by virtue of the operation of Article 224 ?                  — provisions are not to be used to adjust the values
     If so, what guidelines or criteria should be applied in                     of assets ( Article 20 ( 3 )),
     order to determine whether the said policy may
     properly be so excluded from the ambit of Directive
                                                                             — account is to be taken of all foreseeable liabilities
     76/207/EEC by reason of Article 224 ?
                                                                                and potential losses arising in the course of the
                                                                                financial year concerned or of a previous one, even
5. Is the policy adopted by a Member State of excluding                          if such liabilities or losses become apparent only
                                                                                between the date of the balance sheet and the date
     all women during peace time and/or in preparation for
     war from service as interoperable marines capable of                        on which it is drawn up ( Article 31 ( 1 ) (c ) ( bb )),
     being justified under Article 2 ( 2 ) of Council Directive
     76/207/EEC ?                                                            — the components of asset and liability items are to
                                                                                be valued separately (Article 31 ( 1 ) ( e ) ) ,
6. If so, what is the test to be applied by a national                       — provisions are not to exceed in amount the sums
     tribunal when considering whether or not the                                which are necessary ( first paragraph of Article 42 ),
     application of the policy is justified ?
                                                                             where a building construction undertaking, which uses
(') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               subcontractors in addition to its own employees to
    and women as regards access to employment, vocational                    perform its contracts, does not make individual
    training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ L 39,                provision, taking into account the individual liabilities
    14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).                                                 under warranties inherent in particular contracts, for
                                                                             indemnity liabilities not arising until after the date of
                                                                             the balance sheet, but makes global provision therefor
                                                                             by way of a fixed percentage of the turnover subject to
                                                                             warranties ?
                                                                         2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Koln by order of that court of 16 July 1997 in the case of
DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH against Finanzamt                               Subject to what preconditions, in accordance with
                                 Bergheim                                    what valuation criteria and in what percentage,
                             Case C-2 75/97 )                                possibly assessed by the business itself, may such
                                                                             global provision be made, regard also being had to
                              ( 97/C 295/27 )                                any rights of recourse against employees of the
                                                                             business and subcontractors, which are enforceable
                                                                             only to a limited extent, and, in the event of doubts as
                                                                             to the amount of the provision needed, who bears the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             disadvantage of the fact that the matter is not
European Communities by order of the Thirteenth                              susceptible of proof?
Chamber of the Finanzgericht Koln ( Finance Court,
Cologne ) of 16 July 1997, received at the Court Registry
on 30 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH against Finanzamt
( Tax Office ) Bergheim on the following questions:
                                                                         Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the
1 . Is there compliance with the accounting rules laid                       European Communities against the French Republic
     down by the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
     25 July 1978 on annual accounts ( OJ L 222, 14 . 8 .                                        ( Case C-276/97 )
     1978 , p. 11 ), under which :                                                                 ( 97/C 295/28 )
     — the annual accounts are to give a true and fair
          view of the company's assets, liabilities, financial           An action against the French Republic was brought before
          position and profit or loss ( Article 2 ( 3 )),                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Helene Michard and Enrico
     — provisions are intended to cover losses or debts the              Traversa , acting as Agents, with an address for service in
          nature of which is clearly defined and which at the            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
          date of the balance sheet are either likely to be              Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
 ---pagebreak--- 27 . 9 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 295/ 19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        resources base is thereby reduced, the Community must be
                                                                    credited with the equivalent of the amount of own
                                                                    resources due, by reason of the infringement, for the
— declare that, by failing to subject to value added tax            period in question . The Community would otherwise
     motorway tolls as consideration for the service                suffer a financial loss to be compensated via GNP
     supplied to users, contrary to Articles 2 and 4 of the         resources . The infringement would thereby cause the other
     Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May                   Member States financial damage; the principle of equal
     1977 ('), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its         treatment would no longer be complied with.
     obligations under the Treaty establishing the European
     Community,
                                                                    It observes that certain Member States such as Italy, Spain
— declare that, by failing to make the corresponding                and Portugal have, unlike the French Government, always
     sums, with interest for late payment, available to the         paid over the own resources corresponding to those
     Commission as own resources, the French Republic               supplies of services, and that the Netherlands, although
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty          contesting the Commission's interpretation in the context
     establishing the European Community,                           of proceedings for failure to fufil obligations, has paid
                                                                    over the own resources in question ' subject to the decision
                                                                    of the Court of Justice'. The fact that the French
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                      authorities have not paid over the contributions
                                                                    corresponding to those supplies of services amounts to a
                                                                    difference in treatment which runs counter to the rules for
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 financing the Community budget and seriously
                                                                    compromises the uniform application of those rules
( On the taxation of motorway tolls )                               regarding own resources based on Community VAT.
According to the Commission, the making available of                (') OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ L 155 , 7 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
highway infrastructure constitutes an economic activity             (') OJ L 336 , 27 . 12 . 1977 , p . 1
within the meaning of Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT
Directive. Under Article 4 ( 5 ) of that Directive, the only
activities in respect of which bodies governed by public
law are not to be considered taxable persons are those
which fall strictly within the performance of the functions
of a public authority. Users are not obliged to use the toll
network, however. The fact that motorists individually
agree to make a payment to use a highway network or                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
certain infrastructure is indicative of the fact that that          Gerichtshof by order of that court of 10 June 1997 in
payment corresponds to a service which they receive in              the case of Wrangler Germany GmbH v. Metro
order to enjoy the right to use the infrastructure in                             Selbstbedienungs-GrofShandel GmbH
question . The legal classification of a transaction in the                                      ( Case C-278/97 )
context of the Sixth VAT Directive is independent of the
legal classification it may be given in the various national                                       ( 97/C 295/29 )
laws .
In so far as the French authorities consider that the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
services supplied by the concessionary are supplied to the          European Communities by an order of the Oberster
State, not to the economic operators who use the                    Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court ) of 10 June 1997,
infrastructure, it is impossible for those operators to             which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July 1997,
deduct the tax which is included as a residual amount in            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Wrangler Germany
the toll paid .                                                     GmbH v. Metro Selbstbedienungs-GroShandel GmbH on
                                                                    the following questions:
 ( On the own resources question )
                                                                     Is Article 7 ( 1 ) of the First Council Directive 89/ 104/EEC
                                                                     of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
It follows from Articles 1 and 2 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation
                                                                    Member States relating to trade marks ( OJ L 40, 11 . 2 .
 ( EEC, Euratom ) No 1553/89 (2 ) ( and the corresponding
provisions of Council Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC )              1989, p. 1 , ' the Trade Mark Directive') to be interpreted
No 2892/77 ( } ) which it replaced ) that the own resources          as meaning that the trademark entitles its proprietor to
corresponding to receipts from VAT are to be made
                                                                     prohibit a third party from using the mark for goods
                                                                    which have been put on the market under that mark in a
available by the Member State in which the VAT has been
                                                                     State which is not a Contracting State ?
charged .
The      Commission    considers that   where    there  is  an       May the proprietor of the trade mark on the basis of
 infringement of the Sixth VAT Directive and the VAT                 Article 7 ( 1 ) of the Trade Mark Directive alone seek an


title: Joined Cases T-530/93, T-531/93, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-106/94, T-120/94 and T-124/94: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 July 2009 — Kat and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 July 2009 — Kat and Others v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-530/93, T-531/93, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-106/94, T-120/94 and T-124/94) (1)

   2009/C 233/38

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 334, 9.12.1993.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 1 April 2004 in Case C-229/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monica Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-229/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monica Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 118/58)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-229/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Monica Herbstrith and Republic of Austria, on, first, the direct effect of ‘Community law concerning equal treatment of men and women at work and, more specifically, of Council Directive 76/207/EEC’ of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) or the circumstances in which a Member State may be liable to pay compensation for prejudice suffered by individuals as a result of infringements of Community law, and, second, ‘the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 4 of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997’ on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 6) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of 7 April 2003 is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21. 2. 2004.


title: Case T-498/15: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/17

         Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty)
   (Case T-498/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1935/2014-2 and R 1563/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-478/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 16(1) — Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State — Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled — Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH
   (Case C-478/12) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 16(1) - Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State - Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled - Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)
   2014/C 9/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Feldkirch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic

      Defendant: lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Feldkirch — Interpretation of Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in respect of contracts entered into by consumers — All-inclusive travel contract concluded between a consumer and a company — Situation in which the company is established in a Member State other than that of the consumer and has recourse, for the purpose of performing that contract, to a company which is established in the Member State of the consumer — Whether the consumer is entitled to bring proceedings, before the court of his place of residence, against those two companies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘other party to the contract’ laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that it also covers the contracting partner of the operator with which the consumer concluded that contract and which has its registered office in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-55/13: Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Formula One Licensing/OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/22

         Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Formula One Licensing/OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)
   (Case T-55/13)
   2013/C 101/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Klingberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Marketing SA (Lausanne, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of appeal in case R 1247/2011-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation;

               —

               Order the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘F1H2O’ , for goods and services in classes 9, 25, 38 and 41 — International Registration No 925 383 designating the European Union

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International Registration No 732 134, British trade mark No 2277746B, Community trade mark No 3 934 387, International registration N 845 571, Benelux trademark No 749 056, British trade mark No 2277746 D, Community trade mark No 631 531, Community trade mark No 3 429 396, International Registration No 714 320, International Registration No 823 226 and Benelux trade mark No 732 601 of the mark‘F1 et al.’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32 to 36, 38, 39 and 41 to 43

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-115/10: Action brought on 4 March 2010 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/75

         Action brought on 4 March 2010 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-115/10)
   2010/C 113/109
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, acting as agent, assisted by D.Wyatt, QC and M. Wood, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2010/45/EU, of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) (1), a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean bio-geographical region (2), to the extent that it lists the Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance, identified by code ES6120032,

               —

               award costs against the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant challenges the validity of Commission Decision 2010/45/EU (notified under document number C(2009) 10406) to the extent of its listing of the Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance, and seeks annulment of the listing of the Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted in breach of Directive 92/43/EEC, in that the listing of the Spanish Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance was incompatible with it, because:

               —

               a very substantial area of that site is located within British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW), which fall within the effective control of the United Kingdom rather than Spain, and

               —

               because it completely overlaps the existing UK Southern Water of Gibraltar site of Community importance.

         Secondly, the applicant claims that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, in that the listing of the Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance purports to impose obligations on Spain under Directive 92/43/EEC in respect of an area within an existing site of Community importance, in respect of which the Government of Gibraltar is already subject to identical obligations under that Directive. The effect is to purport to qualify or call into question the authority of the Government of Gibraltar to implement the Directive in the Southern Waters of Gibraltar site of Community importance, and to enforce the law of Gibraltar in BGTW, creating legal uncertainty for the Government of Gibraltar, and for EU citizens.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, in that the listing of the Spanish Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance so as to include the whole of the UK Southern Waters of Gibraltar site of Community importance and other areas of BGTW is neither appropriate, nor necessary, to attain the environmental objectives pursued by Directive 92/43/EEC.
   Finally, the applicant contends that the contested listing of the Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance must be annulled in its entirety, since partial annulment of the listing would have the affect of changing its substance, and would entail amendment by the Court of the listing, and recalculation of the centre point of the site of Community importance, and of its area, and an environmental assessment of the eligibility of the remaining part of the site to qualify as an site of Community importance.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 30, p. 322


title: Case T-286/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Fidelio v OHIM (Hallux) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Hallux — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Fidelio v OHIM (Hallux)
   (Case T-286/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Hallux - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 46/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fidelio KG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 632/2007-4) relating to registration of the word sign ‘Hallux’as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fidelio KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-586/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM — Parfums Givenchy (only givenchy) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ‘only givenchy’ — Earlier Community and national word marks ONLY — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM — Parfums Givenchy (only givenchy)
      (Case T-586/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘only givenchy’ - Earlier Community and national word marks ONLY - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 25/97)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark) (represented by: C. Barrett Christiansen, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Parfums Givenchy SA (Levallois-Perret, France)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 1556/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 and Parfums Givenchy SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-530/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/21

         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-530/08)
   (2009/C 19/38)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbaek and B. Béres, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) or, at least, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Action brought on 6 October 1998 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Case T-163/98) (1999/C 1/31)

text:
4.1.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/15
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð order the Office to accord a filing date to Community
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               trade mark application No 000200006, submitted on
                                                                       19 April 1996;
                     of 23 October 1998
in Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                 the European Communities                         Ð order the Office to pay all the costs.
  (Interlocutory proceedings Ð Admissibility Ð Urgency)
                        (1999/C 1/30)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: English)                    Trade mark           Baby Dry' Ð
                                                                  concerned:           Application No 000200006.
                                                                  Product of           diapers for babies
In Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in                service:
Harrow, Middlesex, England, represented by Raymond St             Decision             refusal of registration by the examiner
John Murphy, Solicitor, Merriman White, 3 King's Bench            contested before
Walk, Inner Temple, London, against Commission of the             the Board of
European Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð                      Appeal:
application for interim measures in the context of an
                                                                  Pleas in law         Ð infringement of      Article 7(1)(b) of
action seeking compensation for the damage which the
                                                                  relied on:               Regulation (EC)   No 40/94
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                                Ð infringement of      Article 7(1)(c) of
publication, under the Commission's responsibility, of a
                                                                                Regulation (EC)   No 40/94
fact sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and
qualifications for general and specialist medical                 Alternatively:       Ð infringement of Articles 7(3) and
practitioners Ð the President of the Court of First                                        62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Instance made an order on 23 October 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved.
                                                                  Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Una Film City
                                                                  Revue' GmbH against the European Parliament and
                                                                                Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-175/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/32)
Action brought on 6 October 1998 by The Procter &
Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                the Internal Market (OHIM)
                       (Case T-163/98)
                                                                  An action against the European Parliament and the
                        (1999/C 1/31)
                                                                  Council of the European Union was brought before the
                                                                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
               (Language of the case: French)                     23 October 1998 by Una Film City Revue' GmbH of
                                                                  Vienna, Austria, represented by Dr Rainer Borgelt, of the
                                                                  Düsseldorf Bar, and Professor Dr Manfred Dauses, of
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the             Bamberg, Germany, with an address for service in
Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Reding & Felten, 2 Rue
First Instance on 6 October 1998 by The Procter &                 J. P. Brasseur, Luxembourg.
Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United
States of America), represented by Thierry van Innis, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58
Rue Charles Martel.
                                                                  Ð Declare Directive 98/43/EC of the European
                                                                       Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  approximation of the laws, regulations and
should:                                                                administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                       relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco
                                                                       products (OJ 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9, enclosed as
Ð annul the Board of Appeal's decision of 31 July 1998;                Annex K3) to be null and void,


title: Case C-521/10 P: Appeal brought on 8 November 2010 by Grúas Abril Asistencia S.L. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia S.L. v European Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/18

         Appeal brought on 8 November 2010 by Grúas Abril Asistencia S.L. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia S.L. v European Commission
   (Case C-521/10 P)
   ()
   2011/C 30/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Grúas Abril Asistencia, S.L. (represented by: R. García García, abogado)

      Other party: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Accept the arguments put forward and set aside, on completion of the necessary legal formalities, the abovementioned order of inadmissibility, declaring the action for annulment admissible, as the appellant has standing to bring it, and giving final judgment in accordance with the appellant’s claims.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is brought against the order of the General Court which held inadmissible the application for annulment of the European Commission’s decision not to bring any proceedings with a view to remedying the infringements complained of. The General Court reasoned that such a refusal to act was not amenable to challenge by an individual.
   The appellant submits that individuals have standing to bring actions for annulment, as provided for in Article 230 EC and Article III-365 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and in the case-law, where they are addressees of the decision which is challenged and where the decision is of direct and individual concern to them. The appellant requests that the order holding inadmissible its application for annulment be set aside and that consequently that application be allowed.


title: Case T-424/13: Action brought on 7 August 2013 — Jinan Meide Casting v Council

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/36

         Action brought on 7 August 2013 — Jinan Meide Casting v Council
   (Case T-424/13)
   2013/C 325/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia, insofar as it relates to the applicant (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1); and

               —

               Order the defendant to bar the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the failure to provide access/disclose to the applicant information relevant to the normal value determination violates the rights of defense of the applicant and Articles 6(7), 20(2) and 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of certain adjustments requested by the applicant violates Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and Article 2.4 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. In the alternative, the applicant considers that the Council violated Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the normal value determination for non-matching product types violates Articles 2(7)(a), 2(10) and 2(10)(a) and Articles 2(11) juncto 2(8), 2(9), 2(7)(a) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and the principle of non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the failure to make a determination as to whether market economy conditions prevail for the applicant within three months of the initiation of the investigation violates Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reliance on inaccurate import data for the injury determination violates Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.


title: Case T-359/08: Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Spain v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/45

         Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-359/08)
   (2008/C 272/89)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               disapply the Guidelines for the assessment of financial corrections to be applied to expenditure co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in cases of non-compliance with the rules on public contracts, final version of 29 November 2007 COCOF 07/0037/03-ES;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2008) 3243 of 25 June 2008 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects No 2001.ES.16.C.P.E.045 (Waste Management in Galicia — 2001) (Group II); and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This dispute concerns four sub-groups of projects relating to the Solid Urban Waste Management Plan for Galicia. The Community financing initially granted for the whole group of projects was 80 % of the costs eligible for public funding.
   In a letter sent by the Commission to the applicant in April 2006, the Commission proposed corrections in respect of irregularities discovered in an earlier audit. In the concluding part of that document contained two proposals for financial corrections. The first, relating to an irregularity penalised by the decision concerned arises from a difference in the criteria for classifying certain contracts. The proposed financial correction with respect to that ground is EUR 59 652,48.
   The entry into force at the end of 2007 of the new ‘Guidelines for the assessment of financial corrections to be applied to expenditure co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in cases of non-compliance with the rules on public contracts’ provides for an increase in the corrections finally imposed, since the criteria contained in it require corrections which are more substantial than those resulting from the application of the Guidelines in force at the material time.
   In support of its claims the applicant submits, first and in accordance with the provisions of Article 241 of the EC Treaty, that the 2007 Guidelines are unlawful on the ground that they are contrary to Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, in so far as, first, they fail to set accurate financial corrections, that is to say financial corrections which reflect the amount of expenditure wrongly charged to the Fund and, second, because by setting the corrections at that amount they take the base for calculating the correction as the contract tender value and not the certified expenditure or, failing that, the price of the contract.
   The 2007 Guidelines also infringe:

               —

               the general principle of transparency in Article 255 of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission: the Guidelines were not widely publicised on account of the form in which they were adopted and their limited access.

               —

               the general principle of legal certainty on account of the fact that it applies retroactively to projects approved from 2000, and

               —

               the duty to give a statement of reasons.

         As regards Decision C(2008) 3243 of 25 June 2008, the applicant submits that, as well as being based on illegal rules, it infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1164/94 and Article 17 of Regulation No 1386/2002 in so far as the basic amount for calculating the correction is the contract tender value and not the certified expenditure or, failing that, the value of the contract.


title: Case C-226/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Constructora Principado SA v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez (Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer contracts — Contract for the purchase of immovable property — Unfair terms — Criteria for assessment)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Constructora Principado SA v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez
   (Case C-226/12) (1)

   (Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Contract for the purchase of immovable property - Unfair terms - Criteria for assessment)
   2014/C 85/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Constructora Principado SA

      Defendant: José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Concept of significant imbalance — Criteria to be taken into account.

      Operative part of the judgment

   1. Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               the existence of a ‘significant imbalance’ does not necessarily require that the costs charged to the consumer by a contractual term have, as regards that consumer, a significant economic impact having regard to the value of the transaction in question, but can result solely from a sufficiently serious impairment of the legal situation in which that consumer, as a party to the contract, is placed by reason of the relevant national provisions, whether this be in the form of a restriction of the rights which, in accordance with those provisions, he enjoys under that contract, or a constraint on the exercise of those rights, or the imposition on him of an additional obligation not envisaged by the national rules;

               —

               in assessing whether there is a significant imbalance, it is for the referring court to take into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded by referring to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of that contract, as well as all the other terms of the contract.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-172/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/31

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG
      (Case C-172/16)
      (2016/C 211/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer

         Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

         Question referred

      Is the Agreement on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) is also applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) thereof, to passengers who intend to land in an airport in Switzerland on a flight from a third country?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-306/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 June 2014  — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD
   (Case C-306/14)
   2014/C 303/33
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

      Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Biovet AD

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the meaning of the term ‘manufacturing process’ in Article 27(2)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and does that term include cleaning and/or disinfection as processes for achieving specific degrees of cleanliness which are prescribed by good practice in the manufacture of medicinal products?

               2.

               Does Article 27(2)(d) of Directive 92/83 permit the enactment of a legal provision under which, after the Member States have introduced legislation exempting alcohol from harmonised excise duty on condition that the alcohol is used in a manufacturing process and that the end product does not contain any alcohol, alcohol used for cleaning is deemed, for the purposes of the application of that exemption, not to have been used in a manufacturing process?

               3.

               Having regard to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, is it permissible for a deeming provision such as that in Article 22(7) ZADS (Bulgarian Law on excise duties and tax warehouses) to be enacted with immediate effect (that is to say, without providing any reasonable period for market participants to adjust their behaviour) if it restricts refunds of excise duty on alcohol used as a cleaning material in the case where the exemption from excise duty has been enacted by the Member State within the scope of its discretion?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.


title: Action brought on 21 April 1997 by Miguel Díaz-Llanos La Roche against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-124/97)

text:
No C 181 /22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Gregorio Valero                           Commission's decision of 27 December 1996 rejecting
Jordana and Serge Vade against the Commission of the                        the complaint made by the applicant against the
                     European Communities                                    former decision, .
                          ( Case T-l 11 /97)                            — declare that the applicant is entitled to revision of his
                            ( 97/C 181 /45 )                                 initial classification, as requested in his written
                                                                            communication of 30 April 1996,
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             sum of one ecu by way of damages for the non
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             material damage which it has caused him,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997
by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, and                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses
Serge Vade, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                           arising from these proceedings .
Carlos Amo Quinones, of the Madrid Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Carlos Amo, 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Case T-16/97 0 ).
— annul the decision adopted on 27 December 1996                        (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
    by the Commission of the European Communities,
    rejecting the applicants' complaints of 13 and
     17 September 1996,
— annul the decisions adopted by the Directorate                                  Removal from the register of T-3 12/94 ( 1 )
     General for Personnel and Administration on 2 June
     1992 ( No 3678 ) and 1 March 1990 ( No 1269 ), albeit                                         ( 97/C 181 /47 )
     only in so far as those decisions appoint the applicants                           (Language of the case: English)
    to Grade 7;
                                                                        By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Third
— in the alternative, annul the act published in the                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    Administrative Notices of 18 and 28 June 1996                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
    whereby an unspecified administrative body                          removal from the register of Case T-3 12/94 : CEPI
     interpreted the decision adopted by the Commission of              Cartonboard v. Commission of the European
    the European Communities on 7 February 1996 and                     Communities .
    the application of that decision of the Commission to
     Gregorio Valero Jordana,                                           O OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                             Removal from the register of T-l 3 8/96 (')
Case T-l 6/9 7 (').                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /48 )
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Action brought on 21 April 1997 by Miguel Diaz-Llanos                   Case T-138/96 :       Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
La Roche against the Commission of the European                         Justice of the European Communities.
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-124/97 )                             (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                            ( 97/C 181 /46 )
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European                                   Removal from the register of T-l 6 1/96 ( ] )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  ( 97/C 181 /49 )
Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1997
by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La Roche, residing in Brussels,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Edmundo Angulo Rodriguez, of the                         By order of 18 March 1997 the President of the First
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
care of Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Brabant .                                                               Case T-161 /96 : Gundolf Bosetti v. Commission of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission, as
                                                                        (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     appointing authority, on 14 June 1996 , by which it
     decided not to reclassify the applicant in step, and the


title: Case T-398/05: Action brought on  7 November 2005  — Tesoka v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/28

         Action brought on 7 November 2005 — Tesoka v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   (Case T-398/05)
   (2006/C 10/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sabrina Tesoka (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the explicit decision of rejection of 14 October 2005

               —

               Rule that the applicant may receive all the allowances and benefits which she can claim by reason of her resignation of 2 August 2005 pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1860/76 amended by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005 of 24 June 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant fair compensation of EUR 35 000, together with interest for late payment at the rate of 7 % from 2 August 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a member of the defendant's staff since 2001, resigned on 2 August 2005 in order to receive the pecuniary benefits set out under Regulation No 1111/2005 for staff members who had resigned before 4 August 2005. In her action, the applicant argues that the defendant rejected her application for indemnities to which she was entitled, and for the documents which she needed to receive social protection in her country of residence, and claims annulment of that decision of refusal and compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.
   In support of her action, she alleges infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1860/76 as amended by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005, infringement of Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, of the provisions of Commission Regulation 91/88 of 13 January 1988, and of her legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-460/11: Action brought on 19 August 2011 — Scandic Distilleries v OHMI — Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne (BÜRGER)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Action brought on 19 August 2011 — Scandic Distilleries v OHMI — Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne (BÜRGER)
   (Case T-460/11)
   2011/C 331/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Scandic Distilleries SA (Bihor, Romania) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2011 in case R 1962/2010-2 and render the registration of the trade mark application as a Community trade mark with regard to all goods and services concerned;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BÜRGER ORIGINAL PREMIUM PILS TRADITIONAL BREWED QUALITY REGISTERED TRADEMARK SIEBENBURGEN’, for goods and services in classes 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8359663

      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 registration No 1234061 of the word mark ‘Bürgerbräu’, for goods and services in classes 21, 32 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly established the existence of likelihood of confusion


title: Case T-50/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2009 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Arable crops — Durum wheat — Period of 24 months — First communication referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 — On-the-spot checks — Remote sensing — Effectiveness of checks — Results of checks — Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned — Existence of financial harm to the EAGGF)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2009 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-50/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Arable crops - Durum wheat - Period of 24 months - First communication referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 - On-the-spot checks - Remote sensing - Effectiveness of checks - Results of checks - Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned - Existence of financial harm to the EAGGF)
   2009/C 180/82
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa, Agents, assisted by M. Figueiredo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic in the sector of arable crops (durum wheat).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund EAGGF in so far as that decision excludes in respect of the Portuguese Republic certain expenditure incurred in the sector of arable crops (durum wheat) during the marketing year 2003;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-630/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — DK Recycling und Roheisen v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures presented by Germany — Clause relating to extremely difficult cases — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to property — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — DK Recycling und Roheisen v Commission
      (Case T-630/13) (1)

      ((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures presented by Germany - Clause relating to extremely difficult cases - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/60)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27) in so far as Article 1(1) thereof, read in conjunction with Annex I, Point A thereto, rejects the inscription of the installation with the identification codes DE000000000001320 and DE-new-14220-0045 on the list of installations provided for in Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), and the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances to be allocated for free to those installations.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as it rejects the free allocation of emission allowances for the installations listed in Annex I, Point D to that decision on the basis of a process emissions sub-installation for the production of zinc in the blast furnace and related processes;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-34/06: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Universal v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/65

      Order of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Universal v Commission
      (Case T-34/06) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/117)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-376/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Rights of use of the terrestrial digital television broadcasting radio spectrum — Public procurement procedure — Criteria for selection of tenderers — Proportionality — Special rights)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/3

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-376/13) (1)

   ((Failure to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Rights of use of the terrestrial digital television broadcasting radio spectrum - Public procurement procedure - Criteria for selection of tenderers - Proportionality - Special rights))
   (2015/C 205/04)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Malferrari and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: D. Drambozova, E. Petranova and J. Atanasov, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by restricting, by virtue of Paragraph 5a(1) and (2) of the transitional and final provisions of the Law on electronic communications (Zakon za elektronnite saobshteniya), to two the number of undertakings to which a right of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum may be allocated and to which a permit to supply corresponding electronic communications services may be issued, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services;

               2.

               Declares that, by prohibiting, by virtue of Articles 47a(1) and (2) and 48(3) of the Law on electronic communications, providers of televisual content whose programmes are not broadcast in Bulgaria and persons connected therewith from participating in the public procurement procedure for the award of rights of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum and to provide corresponding services, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009; Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Article 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 2002/77;

               3.

               Declares that, by prohibiting, by virtue of Article 48(5) of the Law on electronic communications, successful tenderers for the rights of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum from establishing electronic communication networks for the broadcast of radio and television programmes, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20, as amended by Directive 2009/140; Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 2002/77;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-162/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 May 2009 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Taous Lassal

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 May 2009 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Taous Lassal
   (Case C-162/09)
   2009/C 153/55
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Defendant: Taous Lassal

      Questions referred

               1)

               In circumstances where (i) an EU citizen came to the United Kingdom in September 1999 as a worker and remained as a worker until February 2005 (H) the EU citizen then left the United Kingdom and returned to the Member State of which she is a national for a period of 10 months (iii) the EU citizen returned to the United Kingdom in December 2005 and resided there continuously until November 2006, when she made a claim for social security assistance:

         Is Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 to be interpreted as entitling that EU citizen to a right of permanent residence by virtue of the fact that she had been legally resident, in accordance with earlier Community law instruments conferring rights of residence on workers, for a continuous period of five years which ended prior to 30 April 2006 (the date by which Member States had to transpose the Directive)?


title: Case C-128/09 to C-131/09, C-134/09 and C-135/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua (C-128/09), Guido Durlet and Others (C-129/09), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez (C-130/09), Philippe Daras (C-131/09), Association des riverains et habitants des communes proches de l’aéroport BSCA (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) (ARACh) (C-134/09 and C-135/09), Bernard Page (C-134/09), Léon L’Hoir, Nadine Dartois (C-135/09) v Région wallonne (Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Scope — Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ — Aarhus Convention — Access to justice in environmental matters — Extent of the right to a review procedure in respect of a legislative act)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua (C-128/09), Guido Durlet and Others (C-129/09), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez (C-130/09), Philippe Daras (C-131/09), Association des riverains et habitants des communes proches de l’aéroport BSCA (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) (ARACh) (C-134/09 and C-135/09), Bernard Page (C-134/09), Léon L’Hoir, Nadine Dartois (C-135/09) v Région wallonne
   (Case C-128/09 to C-131/09, C-134/09 and C-135/09) (1)

   (Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Scope - Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ - Aarhus Convention - Access to justice in environmental matters - Extent of the right to a review procedure in respect of a legislative act)
   2011/C 362/02
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua (C-128/09), Guido Durlet and Others (C-129/09), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez (C-130/09), Philippe Daras (C-131/09), Association des riverains et habitants des communes proches de l’aéroport BSCA (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) (ARACh) (C-134/09 and C-135/09), Bernard Page (C-134/09), Léon L’Hoir, Nadine Dartois (C-135/09)

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      In the presence of: Société régionale wallonne du transport (SRWT) (C-128/09 and C-129/09), Infrabel SA (C-130/09 and C-131/09), Société wallonne des aéroports (SOWEAR) (C-135/09)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved, on behalf of the European Community, by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Recognition, as specific national legislative acts, of certain consents ‘ratified’ by decree in respect of which there are overriding reasons in the general interest? — Absence of complete right of action against a decision to authorise projects capable of having significant effects on the environment — Whether the existence of such a right is optional or obligatory — Infrastructure works relating to the extension of the Liège-Bierset Airport runway

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of that directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the directive’s scope. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions have been satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply ‘ratify’ a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons in the general interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been commenced, cannot be regarded as a specific legislative act for the purposes of that provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the scope of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35;

               2.

               Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, and Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           when a project falling within the scope of those provisions is adopted by a legislative act, the question whether that legislative act satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 1(5) of that directive must be capable of being submitted, under the national procedural rules, to a court of law or an independent and impartial body established by law;

                           —

                           if no review procedure of the nature and scope set out above were available in respect of such an act, any national court before which an action falling within its jurisdiction is brought would have the task of carrying out the review described in the previous indent and, as the case may be, drawing the necessary conclusions by disapplying that legislative act.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.