title: Case C-254/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2016 — Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2016 — Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-254/16)
   (2016/C 296/24)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Glencore Grain Hungary Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the period within which overpaid VAT must be refunded is to be extended up to the date on which the report drawn up following an investigation is delivered in the case where, in the course of a tax investigation procedure initiated within 30 days from the receipt of the application for a refund, a fine is imposed on the taxable person for non-compliance with an obligation?

               2.

               Having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, does Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 preclude national legislation under which, in the event of late payment of a sum, payment of default interest is excluded in the case where, in the context of an investigation concerning the refund of that sum, the taxable person was fined by the authority in connection with the obligation to cooperate, even though the investigation, which lasted several years, was significantly delayed for reasons which cannot principally be attributed to the taxable person?

               3.

               Must Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that a claim for payment of interest in connection with tax withheld or not allocated contrary to EU law is a substantive right which flows directly from EU law itself, such that an infringement of EU law is sufficient for a right to interest to be claimed before the courts and other authorities of the Member States?

               4.

               If, in the light of the answers given to the preceding questions, the referring court should conclude that the domestic legislation of the Member State is incompatible with Article 183 of the VAT Directive, would it be acting in accordance with EU law if it were to take the view that the refusal, in the decisions of the Member State’s authorities, to pay default interest was incompatible with Article 183 of the VAT Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-738/16: Action brought on 25 October 2016 — La Quadrature du Net and Others v Commission

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/39

         Action brought on 25 October 2016 — La Quadrature du Net and Others v Commission

   (Case T-738/16)
   (2017/C 006/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: La Quadrature du Net (Paris, France), French Data Network (Amiens), Fédération des Fournisseurs d’Accès à Internet Associatifs (Fédération FDN) (Amiens) (represented by: H. Roy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 to be contrary to Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               annul that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants put forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) by reason of the generalised nature of the collections allowed under the US regulatory regime. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield (‘the contested decision’) committed such an infringement by failing to draw the conclusion that the US regulatory regime is in particular contrary to the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of the Charter, insofar as the contested decision wrongly found that the EU-US Privacy Shield assures a level of protection of fundamental rights that is substantially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union despite the fact that the operations allowed under the US regulatory regime are not limited to what is strictly necessary.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of the Charter, to the extent that the contested decision failed to take into consideration the lack of effective remedy provided for under the US regulatory regime and concluded, notwithstanding that failure, that the abovementioned protection was equivalent.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the Charter, as the contested decision was manifestly incorrect in finding that the EU-US Privacy Shield assured protection equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union, despite the lack of provision of independent monitoring under the US regulatory regime.


title: Case T-305/16: Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/26

         Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE)
   (Case T-305/16)
   (2016/C 287/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and A. Berger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primark Holdings (Dublin, Ireland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LOVE TO LOUNGE’ — EU trade mark No 8 500 548

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 in Case R 489/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and declare invalid EU trade mark No 8 500 548;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-606/11: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Woodman Labs v OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/10

         Order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Woodman Labs v OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)
   (Case T-606/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 273/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Woodman Labs, Inc. (Sausalito, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2011 (Case R 876/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL and Woodman Labs, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case F-72/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Verheyden v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/37

         Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Verheyden v Commission
   (Case F-72/06)
   (2006/C 190/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Luc Verheyden (Angera, Italy) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the production of the files concerning the applicant and sealed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and all the evidence and documents collected by OLAF against the applicant;

               —

               order the production of the warrant of the OLAF inspectors;

               —

               order the production of any OLAF report concerning the investigation, whether or not sent to the Italian judicial authorities, including the final report of the internal investigation;

               —

               annul the investigation into the applicant;

               —

               annul the Note from OLAF notifying the investigation and providing information to the Italian judicial authorities and the despatch of the reports of the investigation to the Italian judicial authorities;

               —

               annul the intermediate and final reports of the investigation;

               —

               annul the implicit decisions rejecting the applicant's application and complaint;

               —

               annul all measures which may be taken subsequently to the bringing of this action following and/or relating to those decisions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 30 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant, in addition to putting forward very similar pleas to those raised in connection with Case F-5/05 (1) and raising the same pleas of unlawfulness as invoked in that case, also contends that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (2) is unlawful as to the part which inserts Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-22/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

      (2)  OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.


title: Case T-336/11: Action brought on 24 June 2011 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/38

         Action brought on 24 June 2011 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN)
   (Case T-336/11)
   2011/C 252/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicini SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2011 in Case No R 0634/2010-2 and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 5 March 2010 relating to Opposition No 1350711.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: VICINI SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘GIUSEPPE’ (application for registration No 6.513.386), for goods and services in Classes 18 and 25

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘ZANOTTI’ (No 244.277), for goods and services in Class 25, and Italian figurative mark containing the word element ‘Zanotti’, for goods in Classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition rejected in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-48/00: Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicant alleges:                                                   — misuse of powers: the importation of EU/OCT sugar and
                                                                             mixtures from the OCTs arises directly from the OCT
— infringement of the rights of defence and the principle of                 decision, and is a result intended by the Council;
    open administration;
                                                                         — the declaration that Article 308d of Regulation
— infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Articles                 No 2454/93 is applicable is incompatible with Article 109
    5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2943/95;                                   of the OCT decision.
— infringement of the principle of proportionality;
— misuse of power.
                                                                         Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European                                                   (Case T-48/00)
                           Communities
                                                                                (2000/C 135/41)
                          (Case T-47/00)
                         (2000/C 135/40)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 2000 by British Steel
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Limited, represented by John Pheasant and Matthew Readings,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
(Free Zone) NV, a company incorporated under the laws of
Aruba, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by G. van
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.                  — annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 8 December
                                                                             1999, C(1999) 4154 final;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul Article 1 of this decision;
— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of
    15 November 1999 introducing safeguard measures in                   — annul the fine imposed in respect of Article 1;
    respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures
    of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30                — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in respect of
    and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and                 Article 1;
    territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11);
                                                                         — order the Commission to repay the fine or, in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     alternative, the amount by which it is reduced together
                                                                             with interest on the whole or, as the case may be, such
                                                                             amount by which it is reduced from the date of payment by
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                         British Steel to the date of repayment by the Commission;
— Regulation No 2423/1999 is incomprehensible; at any                    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs in these
    rate, it contains an insufficient statement of reasons: in               proceedings.
    support of the safeguard measures, the Commission cites
    difficulties in respect of which no details are given;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— manifest errors with regard to the facts;
— the fixing of a minimum price for imports of EU/OCT                    In the contested decision the Commission held that several
    sugar from the OCTs constitutes an infringement of Article           producers of seamless steel tubes infringed Article 81 (1) EC
    109(1) and (2) of the OCT decision;                                  and imposed a fine, inter alia, on the applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/23
The applicant seeks the annulment, in whole or in part, of this         Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics
decision in particular on the following grounds:                             SpA v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-52/00)
— As regards Article 2 of the decision, the supply contracts
    concluded by British Steel with Vallourec, Dalmine and
    MRW were not the result of an unlawful agreement or                                         (2000/C 135/42)
    collusion contrary to Article 81(1) and can be explained
    by the relevant commercial context in which they were
    concluded.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— As regards Article 1, there is insufficient evidence to               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 9 March
    uphold a finding of infringement against British Steel from         2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics SpA, represented by Giuseppe
    (and including) 1991.                                               Michele Giacomini and Elisabetta Minozzi, of the Genoa Bar.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
— In any event, given the relevant commercial context, the
    gravity and extent of any participation by British Steel in
    the infringement would have been only minor such that a             — Annul the letter of 20 December 1999, reference D17482,
    significantly reduced fine would have been appropriate. If               of the European Commission, Competition DG;
    the infringement is upheld, the fine imposed in respect of
    it should therefore be significantly reduced.
                                                                        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
— The Commission has based the duration of the Article 1
    infringement on an important factual error. The quota               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    arrangement implemented by the Japanese producers was
    authorised by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade
    and Industry until 1991, and not 1990 as stated in                  The applicant in this case takes exception to the defendant’s
    the decision. Accordingly, by its own reasoning, the                rejection of its complaint concerning the fact that on 30 March
    Commission should not have made a finding of infringe-              1999 the Port Authority of the Port of Ancona and Ancona
    ment before 1991. If the infringement is upheld, the fine           Merei S.C.p.A. prevented it from unloading coal, using its own
    imposed in respect of it should be reduced to reflect a             facilities, at quay No 25 in the port. That quay was the only
    shorter duration.                                                   one which the applicant could use since it was the only one
                                                                        equipped with a crane capable of unloading the goods. That
                                                                        refusal, in its view, constitutes an infringement of Article 86
                                                                        EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC.
— The Commission failed to satisfy the legal requirement to
    indicate in the Statement of Objections the essential factors
    defined in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17, and thereby              In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
    infringed British Steel’s rights of defence. The fine should        rights of the defence and of the principle of legal certainty, as
    therefore be annulled.                                              regards that part of the letter relating to the applicability of
                                                                        Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 December
                                                                        1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under
                                                                        Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (1). It is alleged in that
— The Commission entirely failed to take into account British           connection, in particular, that Ancona Merci, the concession-
    Steel’s co-operation with the Commission, and thereby               aire for the quay at which it was sought to undertake unloading
    infringed British Steel’s legitimate expectations and also          operations, is an undertaking with exclusive rights which
    the principle of equal treatment. The fine should therefore         abused its dominant position in deciding whether or not a
    be reduced.                                                         third party should be allowed, using its own resources, to
                                                                        unload goods at the quay and it is the applicant’s sole or main
                                                                        competitor in the market for that activity.
                                                                        Also, the contested letter constitutes a final decision to shelve
                                                                        a complaint within the meaning of Council Regulation No 17,
                                                                        adopted in breach of the procedure laid down in Articles 6, 7
                                                                        and 8 of Regulation No 2842/98.


title: Case C-141/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 39 EC to 42 EC — Freedom of movement of persons — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security of migrant workers — Refusal to pay certain benefits — Workers employed on drilling platforms in the Netherlands — Admissibility of the action)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/2

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-141/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 39 EC to 42 EC - Freedom of movement of persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Social security of migrant workers - Refusal to pay certain benefits - Workers employed on drilling platforms in the Netherlands - Admissibility of the action)
   2012/C 165/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L Inez Fernandes and E. Silveira, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of Articles 45 TFEU to 48 TFEU — Refusal to pay certain benefits to workers living in the Member States of the European Union who are employed on drilling platforms in the Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-365/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 76/768/EEC — Provision of national law concerning the information that must be given on the packaging of cosmetic products — Natural or artificial origin of perfume essences or fragrances contained in cosmetic products)

text:
18.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 118/15
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                  (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                           7 March 2002
in Case C-365/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 76/768/EEC — Provision of national law concern-
ing the information that must be given on the packaging of                                         (Second Chamber)
cosmetic products — Natural or artificial origin of perfume
    essences or fragrances contained in cosmetic products)                                            7 March 2002
                          (2002/C 118/22)                                  in Case C-29/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-365/00, Commission of the European Communities
(agents: R. B. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(agent: U. Leanza, assisted by I. M. Braguglia): Application for                              in the European Court Reports)
a declaration that, by having enacted and maintained in force
Article 28 of Law No 128 of 24 April 1998 making provision
for the implementation of obligations resulting from Italy’s
membership of the European Communities — Community
Law 1995-1997, which makes it a requirement that the labels                In Case C-29/01, Commission of the European Communities
of cosmetic products state whether the perfume essences or                 (agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (agent:
fragrances contained in them are of natural or artificial origin,          M. López-Monı́s Gallego): Application for a declaration that,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the                        measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pol-
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by                   lution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), or, in
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993                       any event, by failing to communicate the same to the
L 151, p. 32), and, in particular, under the third subparagraph            Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
of Article 6(1)(g) thereof, the Court (Fourth Chamber), compo-             obligations under that directive, the Court (Second Chamber),
sed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward               composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
(Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colom-              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; C. Stix-
er, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment            Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
on 7 March 2002, in which it:                                              judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.    Declares that, by having enacted and maintained in force                   administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
      Article 28 of Law No 128 of 24 April 1998 making provision                 Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning
      for the implementation of obligations resulting from Italy’s               integrated pollution prevention and control, the Kingdom of
      membership of the European Communities — Community Law                     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1995-1997, which makes it a requirement that the labels of
      cosmetic products state whether the perfume essences or fra-
      grances contained in them are of natural or artificial origin, the   2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      third subparagraph of Article 6(1)(g) of Council Directive 76/
                                                                           (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
      768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws
      of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
      by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993;


title: Case C-436/09: Order of the President of the Court of 13 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Attila Belkiran v Lord Mayor of Krefeld, other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Attila Belkiran v Lord Mayor of Krefeld, other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   (Case C-436/09) (1)

   2012/C 73/42
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-342/14 P: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — CR v Parliament and Council (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Recovery of overpayments — Plea of illegality raised in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/21

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — CR v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-342/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Recovery of overpayments - Plea of illegality raised in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 056/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CR (Malling, France) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2014 in CR v Parliament (F-128/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr CR shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 April 2001 in Case T-37/99: Ugo Miranda v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Resettlement allowance — Meaning of residence)

text:
C 227/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         11.8.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 April 2001
                          of 24 April 2001
                                                                           in Case T-37/99: Ugo Miranda v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-159/98: Ivan Torre and Others v Commission                       (Officials — Resettlement allowance — Meaning of resi-
               of the European Communities (1)                                                              dence)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/30)
(Officials — Competition — Irregularity in the manner in
which the tests were conducted, such as to distort the results
           — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case T-37/99: Ugo Miranda, an official of the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                          (2001/C 227/29)                                  by L. Radicati di Brozolo, lawyer, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. Dal Ferro) — application for
                                                                           annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 May 1998,
                                                                           relating to the recovery of the resettlement allowance paid to
                    (Language of the case: French)                         the applicant by virtue of Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                           Regulations — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                           P. Mengozzi); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 April 2001, in which it:
In Case T-159/98: Ivan Torre, residing in Brussels, Donatella
Ineichen, residing in Brussels, Allessandro Cavallaro, residing            1.    dismisses the application;
in Rome, represented by M.-A. Lucas, avocat, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                    2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for annulment, first, of the decisions of the
selection board in competition EUR/A/123 awarding the                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.99.
applicants a mark eliminating them from the initial pre-
selection test and, second, of the subsequent steps taken in
that competition, in so far as may be necessary in order to
restore the applicants’ rights — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President,
and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
24 April 2001, in which it:
                                                                                of 28 March 2001
1.    Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the
      present action in so far as concerns Mr Torre and Mr Cavallaro;      in Case T-144/99 Institute of Professional Representatives
                                                                           before the European Patent Office v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    Dismisses the action in so far as concerns Ms Ineichen;
                                                                           (Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              Article 81 EC) — Professional code of conduct — Ban on
                                                                                comparative advertising — Supply of services)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/31)
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-144/99, Institute of Professional Representatives
                                                                           before the European Patent Office, established in Munich


title: Case F-83/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Cristina v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Decision of the selection board in the competition not to admit the applicant to the tests — Remedies — Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint — Admissibility — Specific conditions for entry to the competition — Professional experience related to the nature of the duties)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Cristina v Commission
   (Case F-83/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Decision of the selection board in the competition not to admit the applicant to the tests - Remedies - Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint - Admissibility - Specific conditions for entry to the competition - Professional experience related to the nature of the duties)
   2012/C 287/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alma Yael Cristina (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the chairman of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants (AST 3) not to admit the applicant to the tests.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Cristina to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 41.


title: Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case C-528/11 ( OJ C 370, 17.12.2011 )

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/32

         Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case C-528/11
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 370 of 17 December 2011
      )
   2012/C 133/64
   The text of the notice in Case C-528/11 Halaf is to be replaced by the following text:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 October 2011 — Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet
      (Case C-528/11)
      2012/C 133/64
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen Sad Sofia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf

         Defendant: Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (1) of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national to be interpreted as meaning that it permits a Member State to assume responsibility for examining an asylum application where no personal circumstances exist in relation to the asylum seeker which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation and where the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of that regulation has not responded to a request to take back the applicant pursuant to Article 20(1) of Regulation No 343/2003, given that that regulation does not contain any provisions concerning compliance with the principle of solidarity pursuant to Article 80 TFEU?

                  2.

                  What is the content of the right to asylum under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 53 of that Charter and in conjunction with the definition in Article 2(c) and recital 12 of Regulation No 343/2003?

                  3.

                  Is Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, in relation to the obligation under Article 78(1) TFEU to comply with instruments under international law on asylum, to be interpreted as meaning that in the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Regulation No 343/2003, the Member States are obliged to request the Office of the UNHCR to present its views, where facts and conclusions therefrom are set out in documents of that Office to the effect that the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of provisions of European Union law on asylum?

            If this question is answered in the affirmative, the following question might also be answered:
      If such a request is not made to the Office of the UNHCR to present its views, does this constitute a substantial infringement of the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 343/2003 and an infringement of the right to good administration and the right to an effective legal remedy pursuant to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically also in the light of Article 21 of Directive 2005/85/EC, which provides that that Office has the right to present its views when individual applications for asylum are examined?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 50, p 1


title: Case C-251/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/16

         Action brought on 12 May 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-251/17)
   (2017/C 221/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the judgment of the Court of 19 July 2012 in Case C-565/10 Commission v Italy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to make a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 346 922,40 for each day of delay in implementing the judgment in Case C-565/10 from the date of judgment in the present case to the date of implementation of the judgment in Case C-565/10, less a possible reduction calculated by the proposed reduction formula;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay a lump sum of EUR 39 113,80 per day from the date of the judgment in Case C-565/10 until the date of judgment in the present case or until implementation of the judgment in Case C-565/10, with a minimum total amount of EUR 62 699 421,40;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the Commission takes issue with the failure to give effect to the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 July 2012 in relation to 80 of the Italian agglomerations which were the subject of that judgment.
   In this respect, the Italian Republic acknowledges its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) in relation to 35 agglomerations. It also acknowledges its failure to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of that directive in relation to 70 agglomerations.
   From this the Commission concludes that the Italian Republic has not taken all of the measures necessary to implement in full the judgment of 19 July 2012.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2000 in Joined Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Safeguard measures — Sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)

text:
C 335/42                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
                                                             COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  G. van der Wal, advocate before the Hoge Raad der Nederlan-
                                                                             den, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                      of 20 September 2000                                   Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, and Free Trade Foods
                                                                             NV, established in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, represented
in Case T-203/99: Patrizia De Palma and Others v Com-                        by R. J. van Agteren and M. M. Slotboom, both of the Rotter-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                            dam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                             Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,
         (Officials — Leave for trade union purposes)                        supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M. A. Fi-
                                                                             erstra) against Commission of the European Communities
                          (2000/C 335/78)                                    (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Van der Hauwaert), supported by
                                                                             the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad) — application
                                                                             for an order suspending the operation of Commission Regu-
                    (Language of the case: French)                           lation (EC) No 465/2000 of 29 February 2000 introducing
                                                                             safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries
In Case T-203/99: Patrizia De Palma, Jacqueline Escale, Claudi-              and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
ne Hamptaux and Harry Wood, officials of the Commission of                   lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39), or any other form of
the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented                  interim measure of such a kind as to safeguard the applicants’
by Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                  interests — the President of the Court of First Instance made
service at the office of Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck,              an order on 12 July 2000 the operative part of which is as
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      follows:
G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application for the annulment of
Commission’s decision of 23 September 1998 refusing to                       1.    Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R are joined for the purposes
grant the aplicants’ request for special leave for trade union                     of the present order.
purposes — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and                        2.    The operation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000
P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for                      of 29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2000, in                            imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar
which it:                                                                          sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin is suspended
                                                                                in respect of each of the applicants.
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 September 1998
      refusing to grant the aplicants’ request for special leave for trade   3.    The Commission shall determine, up to an amount not
      union purposes.                                                              exceeding 4995 tonnes, the volume of sugar sector products
                                                                                with EC/OCT cumulation of origin which may be imported
2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                      into the Community until 30 September 2000 by each of the
                                                                                applicants and shall lay down the detailed rules to which
                                                                                imports of those products are to be subject.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
                                                                             4.    Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                             INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2000
                                                                                of 20 July 2000
in Joined Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R: Rica Foods
(Free Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV v Commission                          in Case T-149/00 R, Innova, Centro euromediterraneo per
                 of the European Communities                                 lo sviluppo sostenibile v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(Proceedings for interim relief — Safeguard measures —
Sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin —                             (Procedure for interim relief — No jurisdiction)
         Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/80)
                          (2000/C 335/79)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             In Case T-149/00 R, Innova, Centro euromediterraneo per lo
In Joined Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R, Rica Foods (Free                   sviluppo sostenibile, established in Calatafimi (Italy), represent-
Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by                   ed by D. Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for


title: Case C-140/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin and Jo Goossens

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/19

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin and Jo Goossens
      (Case C-140/10)
      (2010/C 161/27)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van Cassatie van België

         Parties to the main proceedings

                  Applicants

                  :

                  Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV

                  Defendants

                  :

                              Jean Hustin

                              Jo Goossens

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 94 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 (2) of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to 13(3), 16, 27 and 104 of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, be interpreted in such a way that the holder or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against anyone who effects acts in respect of material which was sold or disposed of to him by a licensee of the right of exploitation if the limitations in the licensing contract between the licensee and the holder of the Community plant variety right that were stipulated to apply in the event of the sale of that material were not respected?

                  2.

                  If so, is it of significance for the assessment of the infringement that the person effecting the aforementioned act is aware or is deemed to be aware of the limitations thus imposed in the said licensing contract?

         (1)  OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2004 L 162, p. 38.


title: Case C-42/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2017 — M.A.S., M.B.

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2017 — M.A.S., M.B.
   (Case C-42/17)
   (2017/C 195/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte costituzionale

      Parties to the main proceedings

   M.A.S., M.B.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 325(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as requiring the criminal court to disapply national legislation on limitation periods which precludes, in a significant number of cases, the punishment of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or which imposes shorter limitation periods for fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union than for fraud affecting the financial interests of the State, even where there is no sufficiently precise legal basis for such disapplication?

               2.

               Is Article 325(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as requiring the criminal court to disapply national legislation on limitation periods which precludes, in a significant number of cases, the punishment of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or which imposes shorter limitation periods for fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union than for fraud affecting the financial interests of the State, even where, in the legal system of the Member State concerned, limitation periods form part of substantive criminal law and are subject to the principle of the legality of criminal proceedings?

               3.

               Is the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 September 2015 in Case C-104/15, Taricco, to be interpreted as requiring the criminal court to disapply national legislation on limitation periods which precludes, in a significant number of cases, the punishment of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or which imposes shorter limitation periods for fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union than for fraud affecting the financial interests of the State, even where such disapplication is at variance with the overriding principles of the constitution of the Member State concerned or with the inalienable rights of the individual conferred by the constitution of the Member State?


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-474/04 (1)

   (2005/C 182/64)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 9 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-474/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.


title: Case C-399/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Deutsche Post AG, Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV, UPS Europe SA, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — Article 87 EC — Aid granted by the Member States — Measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG — Article 86 EC — Services of general economic interest — Compensation for additional costs generated by a policy of selling below cost in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector — Existence of an economic advantage — Method used by the Commission to check — Burden of proof — Article 230 EC — Scope of the General Court’s powers of judicial review)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/10

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Deutsche Post AG, Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV, UPS Europe SA, Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-399/08 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Article 87 EC - Aid granted by the Member States - Measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG - Article 86 EC - Services of general economic interest - Compensation for additional costs generated by a policy of selling below cost in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector - Existence of an economic advantage - Method used by the Commission to check - Burden of proof - Article 230 EC - Scope of the General Court’s powers of judicial review)
      (2010/C 288/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, J. Flett and B. Martenczuk, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt), Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (represented by: R. Wojtek, Rechtsanwalt), UPS Europe SA (represented by: E. Henny, advocaat), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 July 2008 in Case T-266/02 Deutsche Post v Commission annulling Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2002 L 247, p. 27) declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Compensation of additional costs generated by a below-cost selling policy in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector — Infringement of Articles 86(2) EC and 87(1) EC, Article 230 EC and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Annulment without finding any specific error in the Commission’s reasoning supporting the contested decision — Failure to state reasons as regards the alleged unlawfulness of the method used by the Commission to ascertain the existence of unlawful aid

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeals;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG in connection with the main appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV and UPS Europe SA to bear their own costs relating to the main appeal;

                  4.

                  Orders Deutsche Post AG, Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV and UPS Europe SA to bear their own costs relating to the cross-appeals;

                  5.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-165/10: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Confecciones Sanfertús (TORO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/36

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Confecciones Sanfertús (TORO)
   (Case T-165/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 246/61
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Confecciones Sanfertús, SL (Graus, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 638/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Confecciones Sanfertús, SL and Grupo Osborne, SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-436/15: Action brought on 4 August 2015 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro v Commission

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/20

         Action brought on 4 August 2015 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro v Commission
   (Case T-436/15)
   (2015/C 328/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi (Otranto, Italy); and Negro Daniele (Otranto) (represented by: V. Pellegrino and A. Micolani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               first, suspend the measure, in so far as concerns the applicants’ interest, pursuant to Article 278 TFEU;

               —

               find and declare that Commission Implementing Decision No 2015/789 is unlawful, in particular Article 9 thereof and Annex 1 thereto, to the extent that they classify the Vitis species among those susceptible to the European and non-European isolates of Xylella fastidiosa and therefore prohibit movement of that species ‘within the Union, within or out of the demarcated area’, and accordingly annul that decision in so far as it concerns the applicants’ interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order any other measures which the Court may consider necessary, such as further investigation, including by EFSA.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their claims, the applicants allege infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5 TEU and Article 296 TFEU, as well as essential procedural requirements, in the form of failure to give reasons or incorrect reasons; they also allege misuse of powers on the grounds of incorrect assumptions in matters of fact and law, failure to conduct a proper investigation and inherent inconsistency.
   The applicants submit that the action has its origins in studies carried out by researchers at the National Research Council (CNR) of Bari, which, in the light of observations, tests and experiments, in the field and in the laboratory, show that:

               —

               the bacterium isolated in Salento is a different subspecies and strain from that widely held to be responsible for plant diseases in grapevines on continents other than Europe;

               —

               since 2013, grapevine varieties grown in the province of Lecce have shown no symptoms of either Pierce’s disease or any other pathological desiccation;

               —

               in the same period with regard to the same grapevine varieties, no trace of the bacterium has been detected, not even in areas close to and in direct contact with infected olive trees;

               —

               laboratory tests on grapevines (via inoculum or contact with the vector) have all produced a negative result, both with regard to the development of the infection and the presence of the bacterium in asymptomatic forms.

         The inclusion of grapevines on the list of specified plants is, in the applicants’ view, manifestly unlawful since it does not take into account the findings of the investigations which reveal that grapevines are clearly immune to the bacterium present in the infected area.
   The applicants also argue that the decision is inconsistent since, following EFSA’s initial opinion of 26 November 2013, which acknowledged that little was known about the Xylella fastidiosa strain in Salento, the Commission did not include grapevines on the list of susceptible plants in the earlier decisions Nos 87 and 497 of 2014, but surprisingly went on to include them and prohibit their movement even though it had received more detailed studies from EFSA and the Italian authorities showing their immunity to the bacterium isolate in Salento.


title: Case C-337/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax entity consisting of a resident parent company and one or more resident subsidiaries — Taxation of profits at parent-company level — Exclusion of non-resident subsidiaries)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-337/08) (1)

   (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Tax entity consisting of a resident parent company and one or more resident subsidiaries - Taxation of profits at parent-company level - Exclusion of non-resident subsidiaries)
   2010/C 100/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X Holding B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Legislation permitting resident parent companies to form a single entity, for tax purposes, with one or more resident subsidiaries, resulting in the taxation of the parent company in respect of the profits of that entity — Exclusion of non-resident subsidiaries from that arrangement

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which makes it possible for a parent company to form a single tax entity with its resident subsidiary, but which prevents the formation of such a single tax entity with a non-resident subsidiary, in that the profits of that non-resident subsidiary are not subject to the fiscal legislation of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-160/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Lancôme v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (COLOR EDITION) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOR EDITION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 55 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/50

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Lancôme v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (COLOR EDITION)
   (Case T-160/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLOR EDITION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 55 of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CMS Hasche Sigle (Cologne, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2007 (Case R 231/2006-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between CMS Hasche Sigle and Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-147/00: Action brought on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories Servier against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/29
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van Huffel                       Action brought on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Servier against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                         (Case T-142/00)
                                                                                (Case T-147/00)
                         (2000/C 247/51)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Huffel, residing at Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented              European Communities on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.             Servier, represented by Elisabethann Wright of White & Case,
                                                                         Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of the selection board in internal
       competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application sub-              —     declare that the decision of the Commission of 9 March
       mitted by the applicant;                                                2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authoris-
                                                                               ations for medicinal products for human use which
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   contain the substances ‘Dexfenfluramine’ and ‘Fenflurami-
                                                                               ne’ is invalid and should be annulled.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     award the applicant the costs of the present action.
The applicant states that, since December 1995, he has worked
continuously for the Commission under successive contracts               Pleas in law and main arguments
as an in-house consultant, as a member of the auxiliary staff
and as a member of the temporary staff. In December 1999 he
applied to take part in internal competition COM/TA/99                   The contested decision requires the Member States to withdraw
organised by the Commission for the constitution of a reserve            the marketing authorisations of Dexfenfluramine and Fenflura-
list of grade A7/A8 and A5/A4 administrators and principal               mine containing medicinal products. The applicant manufac-
administrators. The selection board in that competition                  tures pharmaceutical products containing these substances.
decided to reject his application on the ground that he did not
fulfil the condition requiring applicants to be members of the
regular staff of the Commission who had entered into service             It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
by no later than 1 February 1997, as provided for in the notice          grounds:
of competition.
                                                                         —     The decision was not addressed to the applicant as the
                                                                               holder of the marketing authorisation, contrary to the
The applicant claims that that decision is illegal, since it is                terms of the relevant legislation.
based, first, on an irregular administrative situation which itself
resulted from an abuse of process and, second, on an unlawful
condition for admission to the competition, inasmuch as it is            —     The criteria set forth in Directive 65/65 (1), as interpreted
contrary to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.                               by the European Court, for the withdrawal of marketing
                                                                               authorisation are that the product is harmful in the
                                                                               normal conditions of use or that its therapeutic effect is
He further maintains that, in considering that he did not form                 lacking. The decision does not rely upon these criteria,
part of the regular staff of the Commission at the material                    but mentions other criteria.
time, the selection board committed a manifest error of
assessment.
                                                                         —     By reading the same CPMP report in 1996 and in
                                                                               2000 as conveying radically different information, the
                                                                               Commission made a manifest error of appreciation in
                                                                               reaching its decision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.8.2000
—     By failing to base its decision upon the criteria prescribed        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in the applicable directive, the Commission erred in law.
                                                                          The applicant is an international association of European flat
—     By failing to accept that exceptional circumstances were            glass producers. It seeks annulment of a Commission decision
      present which could justify reaching a different con-               relating to aid granted by Italy to Sangalli Manfredonia Vetro
      clusion than that of the CPMP, the Commission made a                in connection with the construction of a flat-glass factory at
      manifest error of appreciation, violated the rights of the          Manfredonia in southern Italy.
      applicant to have a fair, neutral and careful examination
      of its products and failed to respect the applicable
      legislation.                                                        The applicant maintains that the regional aid project in issue
                                                                          should have been notified to the Commission in the context
                                                                          of the multi-sectoral framework on regional aid. It doubts that
—     The decision fails to explain, in a clear and consistent
                                                                          the subsidy decision was taken by the Italian authorities on a
      manner, why the two products were harmful, and is
                                                                          date prior to that of the entry into force of the framework
      therefore vitiated by inadequate reasoning.
                                                                          scheme. Moreover, the project exceeds the parameters of the
                                                                          regional scheme authorised by previous decisions of the
—     The decision fails to respect the property rights of                Commission.
      the applicant as these are protected by the European
      Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               In addition, the applicant disputes the Commission’s con-
                                                                          clusion that Sangalli and the Sangalli Vetro group were
                                                                          medium-sized undertakings and that they were therefore
                                                                          entitled to receive an additional 15 % by way of gross grant
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-        equivalent (GGE). It postulates that the method used to define
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ
                                                                          undertakings covered by the notion of small and medium-
    1965, 22, p. 369).                                                    sized enterprises (SMEs) is contrary to Article 87(3)(a) and (e)
                                                                          EC. That method prompted the Commission unlawfully to
                                                                          authorise the grant of aid to undertakings which are not SMEs.
                                                                          Lastly, the Commission committed a manifest error in its
                                                                          assessment of the facts in deciding that the investment aid in
                                                                          issue was in accordance with the Commission’s previous
                                                                          decisions approving the aid scheme provided for in Law
                                                                          No 488/92. Contrary to the requirement laid down by that
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Groupement Européen                      law, the project in issue was not economically viable. The
des Producteurs de Verre Plat against the Commission of                   Commission’s assessment in that regard was, on the facts,
                   the European Communities                               manifestly erroneous.
                         (Case T-150/00)
                         (2000/C 247/53)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain
                                                                          against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Groupement                                                 (Case T-151/00)
Européen des Producteurs de Verre Plat, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the
                                                                                (2000/C 247/54)
Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
—     annul decision C(99) 2895 final of the Commission of                An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      the European Communities of 20 July 1999 — State aid                Commission of the European Communities was brought
      C86/98 (ex NN 135/98 — Italy — aid granted to Sangalli              before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      Manfredonia Vetro, Apulia (Italy));                                 on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain, established at
                                                                          Nontron (France), represented by Claude Lazarus, of the Paris
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.                       Bar.


title: Case T-126/07: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Allos Walter Lang GmbH v Allos Walter Lang GmbH v OHIM — KOKORIKO (Coco Rico)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Allos Walter Lang GmbH v Allos Walter Lang GmbH v OHIM — KOKORIKO (Coco Rico)
   (Case T-126/07) (1)

   (2008/C 107/72)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-284/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2012 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt Hahn GmbH

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2012 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt Hahn GmbH
   (Case C-284/12)
   2012/C 273/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Defendant: Flughafen Frankfurt Hahn GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an uncontested decision of the Commission to initiate a formal investigation procedure under the second sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU have the result that, in appeal proceedings concerning the recovery of payments made and an order to refrain from making future payments, a national court is bound by the Commission’s legal opinion in that decision as to whether a measure constitutes State aid?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Are measures adopted by a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2(b)(i) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC, (1) which operates an airport, to be regarded, for the purposes of State aid law, as selective measures within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, simply because they benefit only airlines which use the airport?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Is the criterion of selectivity not satisfied if the public undertaking which operates the airport offers the same conditions, and in a transparent manner, to all airlines which opt to use the airport?

                           (b)

                           Is this still the case if the airport operator adopts a specific business model (cooperation with ‘low-cost carriers’, in this instance), which tailors its conditions of use to such customers, with the result that those conditions are not equally attractive to all airlines?

                           (c)

                           Is there a selective measure, at any rate, if the vast majority of the airport’s passengers has been attributable to a single airline for a number of years?

      (1)  Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-465/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Supplies for consideration — Share issue — Admission of a company to a stock exchange — Deductibility of VAT)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-465/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Supplies for consideration - Share issue - Admission of a company to a stock exchange - Deductibility of VAT)
   (2005/C 217/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-465/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria), made by decision of 20 October 2003, received at the Court on 5 November 2003, in the proceedings between Kretztechnik AG and Finanzamt Linz, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A new share issue does not constitute a transaction falling within the scope of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.

               2.

               Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, confer the right to deduct in its entirety the VAT charged on the expenses incurred by a taxable person for the various supplies acquired by him in connection with a share issue, provided that all the transactions undertaken by the taxable person in the context of his economic activity constitute taxed transactions.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.


title: Case C-415/08 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2008 by Complejo Agrícola against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2008 in Case T-345/06 Complejo Agrícola SA v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/15

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2008 by Complejo Agrícola against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2008 in Case T-345/06 Complejo Agrícola SA v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-415/08 P)
   (2008/C 313/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Complejo Agrícola SA (represented by: A. Menéndez Menéndez and G. Yanguas Montero, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               allow the appeal;

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008, notified to the appellant on 18 July 2008 (‘the CFI judgment’) in which the CFI: (a) declared the action for annulment brought by Complejo Agrícola (‘the action for annulment’) against Commission Decision 2006/613/EC (1) of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (‘Decision 2006/613’), and (b) ordered Complejo Agrícola to bear its costs and to pay those of the Commission of the European Communities (‘the Commission’);

               —

               refer the case back to the CFI in order for it to uphold the action for annulment and give a ruling on the substance of the claims put forward by Complejo Agrícola in the action for annulment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Complejo Agrícola in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The CFI judgment recognises that Decision 2006/613 is a measure which is capable of being challenged. However, in the judgment the CFI denies that Complejo Agrícola has standing to challenge it because, in its opinion, Decision 2006/613, which declares as a site of Community importance (SCI) Acebuchales de la Campiña Sur de Cádiz — cod. 6120015 (‘SCI Acebuchales’) that affects part of the Finca ‘Las Lomas’, which is owned by Complejo Agrícola, is not of direct concern to it as it does not impose any specific obligations on Complejo Agrícola and requires national implementing rules.
   Complejo Agrícola takes the view that the order of the CFI incorrectly interprets Article 230 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (‘EC Treaty’), as it has been interpreted by the most recent case-law, Complejo Agrícola does have locus standi to challenge Decision 2006/613 as that decision is of direct and individual concern to it. That is why the order under appeal must be annulled.
   Complejo Agrícola is directly concerned by Decision 2006/613 if it is analysed either in accordance the formal jurisprudential interpretation of direct concern, which is no longer current, or in accordance with the substantive interpretation now adopted by the Court.
   The order under appeal compares Complejo Agrícola's situation with earlier precedents with which it has nothing in common, without analysing the specific circumstances of this case. In accordance with the case-law currently applicable, Complejo Agrícola's situation must lead to the recognition of its locus standi. The main difference between this case and those examined in the cases mentioned in the order of the CFI is that, when it adopted Decision 2006/613, the Spanish legislation on the protection of SCIs had already been approved and the legal consequences of the adoption of Decision 2006/613 for Complejo Agrícola were already well known so that the possibility that the Spanish State would not apply Decision 2006/613 was purely theoretical. That situation is not altered, as the CFI's order states, by the fact that in the future the Spanish state may amend the rules.

      (1)  OJ L 259, p. 1.