title: Case C-178/00: Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 211/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22.7.2000
Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic                           According to the Commission, there was no entitlement
    against Commission of the European Communities                              to a refund in such cases inasmuch as the olive oil was not
                                                                                included in the list of products in Article 3(8) of Regulation
                                                                                No 3665/87 (2) laying down common detailed rules for
                          (Case C-177/00)                                       the application of the system of export refunds on
                                                                                agricultural products. The Italian authorities disagreed,
                                                                                stating that the mixed oil could not be considered a
                          (2000/C 211/13)                                       compound product within the meaning of Article 8.
                                                                           (c) O t h e r c o r r e c t i o n s — S a l e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       alcohol — Failure to lodge security
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic,                             The Commission’s desire to apply a correction is altogether
represented by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Avvocato dello                       unlawful and unjustified and reliance may not be placed
Stato Danilo Del Gaizo, acting as Agents, with an address for                   on the refusal to reopen the file after the conciliation body
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-                      had delivered its opinion.
Adelaïde.
                                                                                On the other hand, given that failure to deal with the
                                                                                argument fully during the bilateral meeting between the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission and the Italian authorities during the pro-
                                                                                cedure for the clearance of the accounts could not prejudge
                                                                                a new examination of the case, the statement put forward
— Annul the decision of the Commission C(2000) No 488                           by the Community institution to the effect that it had
     final of 1 March 2000 (1) excluding from Community                         received insufficient information to justify changing the
     financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member                       proposed correction was nothing more than an excuse in
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European                         view of the fact that, at the time, the Commission was
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so                     already in possession of all the information from which it
     far as it has carried out financial corrections to the                     would have been able to discern the reasons for the failure
     detriment of Italy, as set forth below, by excluding certain               to lodge the security and if, despite all this, the correction
     amounts from being charged to the fund itself when                         was proposed, that was due only to a misinterpretation of
     determining the total Italian expenditure charged in respect               the facts and of the legal situation, for which the Com-
     of the 1997 financial year and the period from 1995 to                     mission can only blame itself.
     1998, and
                                                                           (1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   (2) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) E x p o r t r e f u n d s — e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e            Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic
     physical monitoring of exports                                            against Commission of the European Communities
     The Italian Government challenges, first of all, the validity                                   (Case C-178/00)
     of the correction, inasmuch as the inspections carried out
     by Commission officials were carried out in blatant                                             (2000/C 211/14)
     infringement of the principles of audi alteram parte and
     the rights of the defence.                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic,
     In the alternative, the correction in question is challenged          represented by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Avvocato dello
     also on the ground that the departments and operations                Stato Danilo Del Gaizo, acting as Agents, with an address for
     inspected were not a representative sample.                           service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
                                                                           Adelaïde.
(b) E x p o r t r e f u n d s — O l i v e o i l
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     EAGGF officials found that export declarations had been               — Annul Commission Decision C(2000) No 486 final of
     accepted in respect of quantities of olive oil originating                 1 March 2000 (1) amending Decision 1999/187/EC (2)
     in the Community which had been mixed with non-                            relating to the clearance of the accounts presented by
     Community olive oil refined under inward processing                        the Member States in respect of the expenditure under
     arrangements.                                                              Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 211/9
     and Guarantee Fund, in so far as it excludes from                  2. Does the fundamental right to protect disposals or the
     Community funding certain amounts relating to the cereal              principle of proportionality preclude the application of
     sector, and                                                           Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 to surplus stocks
                                                                           which were attributable to disposals (purchases or resales)
                                                                           made
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (A) before the date on which that regulation was published,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 or
The Italian Government claims that the Commission’s decision               (B) before the time at which the circles concerned had to
is unlawful in so far as it proposes a financial correction for                 be notified that levies on surpluses were planned?
the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF accounts in
respect of the amounts set out in the application, or, in the
alternative, in so far as concerns the final settlement of the             If so, is that regulation wholly or partially void because it
invoices for sale of cereal into intervention, in so far as it does        infringes those fundamental rights, or is it to be interpreted
not accept LIT 11 952 457 079 claimed by the Italian State.                as meaning that no levy is payable in such cases?
                                                                        3. (A) Is the vendor of goods which it had already resold
(1) OJ 2000 L 61, p. 15.                                                        prior to 1 January 1995, but without physically hand-
(2) OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37.
                                                                                ing them over to the customer, to be regarded as the
                                                                                ‘holder’ of those goods on 1 January 1995 where
                                                                                I.  the goods and the proceeds therefrom were pledged
                                                                                to a bank, and pursuant to the pledging agreement:
                                                                                (a) that bank held, as at 1 January 1995, the keys
                                                                                to the proportion of the goods stored in a
                                                                                pledge warehouse, or
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that court of 17 April 2000 in the
case of Dr Gerald Weidacher, Rechtsanwalt, as trustee in                            (b) the transport documents, in particular the
bankruptcy of Thakis Vertriebs- und HandelsgesmbH                                        multimodal bill of lading relating to the remain-
       v Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry                                   ing proportion of the goods which, having
                                                                                cleared customs, were situated in railway trucks
                                                                                at an Austrian railway station on 1 January
                         (Case C-179/00)                                                 1995, are made out to the order of that bank
                                                                                and are in its possession, and
                         (2000/C 211/15)                                            (c) that bank had a 20 % interest in the proceeds
                                                                                of the sales transaction concluded by the
                                                                                pledgor,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Higher Administrative Court) of 17 April 2000, received                    and, furthermore, where
at the Court Registry on 12 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Dr Gerald Weidacher, as trustee in bankruptcy
of Thakis Vertriebs- und HandelsgesmbH v Federal Minister                       II. (a) the import charges were paid by the pledgor,
for Agriculture and Forestry, on the following questions:
                                                                                (b) the purchase money due to the pledgor was
1. Does the levying of tax on surplus stocks in the new                                  subsequently paid into the account which he
     Member States as from 1 January 1995, as provided for in                            held with that bank but which he was unable
     Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 of                               to use on account of the pledging agreement?
     19 December 1994 (1), constitute a transitional measure
     necessary to facilitate the transition from the existing
     regime in the new Member States to that resulting from                (B) Is the pledgor of the goods not the holder thereof if,
     application of the common organisation of the markets                      on 1 January 1995, he already intended to hold them
     under the conditions set out in Title IV: Agriculture of the               for his customer subject to the restrictions arising
     Act of Accession, within the meaning of Article 149(1) of                  under the pledge agreement? In that connection, does
     that Act, or is that regulation wholly or partially void                   the matter turn on whether or not that intention
     because of the Commission’s lack of competence?                            became outwardly apparent?


title: Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2007 — Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB (Access to documents — Basle/Nyborg Agreement — Action for annulment — Challengeable acts — Statement of reasons — Plea of illegality — Decision 93/731/EC — Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability of the Community for the unlawful conduct of its organs — Damage — Causal link)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2007 — Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB
   (Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Basle/Nyborg Agreement - Action for annulment - Challengeable acts - Statement of reasons - Plea of illegality - Decision 93/731/EC - Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community for the unlawful conduct of its organs - Damage - Causal link)
   (2008/C 8/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: D. Papafilippou, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer, S. Kyriakopoulou and D. Zachariou, and subsequently by M. Bauer and D. Zachariou, acting as Agents), and European Central Bank (represented, in Case T-3/00, initially by C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt and P. Vospernik, and subsequently by C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt, F. Athanasiou and S. Vuorensola, and finally by C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt and F. Athanasiou and, in Case T-337/04, by C. Kroppenstedt, F. Athanasiou and P. Papapaschalis, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for annulment of the decisions of the Council and the European Central Bank refusing the applicant access to documents relating to the Basle/Nyborg Agreement of September 1987 and, second, for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Governing Council of 21 October 1999, as brought to the knowledge of Mr Athanasios Pitsiorlas by letter of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 8 November 1999;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for annulment as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the action for damages;

               4.

               Orders the Council, the ECB and the applicant each to bear their own costs as incurred in Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04. The Council shall bear the costs that it incurred in Case C-193/01 P, together with those incurred in that case by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 122, 29.4.2000.


title: Case T-23/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — MAF v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/22

         Action brought on 17 January 2012 — MAF v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
   (Case T-23/12)
   2012/C 98/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mutuelle des Architectes Français assurances (MAF) (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to publish on the Authority’s website all the information solely in English, including the public consultations launched on 7 and 8 November 2011 and 21 December 2011;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annul the Authority’s decision of 16 January 2012;

               —

               order the Authority to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 8(1)(k) and 73 of Regulation No 1094/2010 (1) in that those provisions require the defendant to publish on its website information relating to its activities in all the official languages of the European Union (EU). The applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and an error of law in so far as the defendant justifies the refusal to publish the public consultations at issue in the applicant’s language, in particular on grounds of cost, whereas it is stated in Article 73(3) of Regulation No 1094/2010 that the translation services required for the functioning of the Authority are to be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the scope of the obligation to publish in the official languages of the European Union. The applicant submits that that obligation applies equally to the public consultations launched by the defendant and not only to the defendant’s annual report, work programme and guidelines and recommendations.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 48).


title: Case T-75/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Embraer and others v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/52

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Embraer and others v Commission
   (Case T-75/10)
   2010/C 113/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica, SA (Embraer) (São José dos Campos, Brazil), Embraer Aviation Europe SAS (EAE) (Villepinte, France), Indústria Aeronáutica de Portugal SA (OGMA) (Alverca do Ribatejo, Portugal) (represented by: U. O’Dwyer and A. Martin, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4541 final of 17 June 2009 declaring compatible with the common market the aid for the research and development costs involved in the design and manufacture of an aircraft product granted by the United Kingdom authorities to Bombardier (Short Brothers) [N 654/2008] (1). The Commission’s decision was taken following a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU. The applicants are the competitors to the beneficiary of the aid and they lodged a complaint opposing the proposed aid and asking the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure.
   In support of its application for annulment, the applicants submit the following pleas in law:

               First, they claim that the Commission experienced serious difficulties during its preliminary examination of the compatibility of the State aid with the common market and, therefore, was obligated to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU. They further state that the Commission’s failure to initiate the formal procedure denied applicants and other parties concerned of their right to be consulted during the Commission’s assessment. In the applicants’ opinion this constitutes a procedural defect in violation of the Treaty.
               Specifically, the serious difficulties encountered by the Commission are evidenced by:

                           —

                           the length and circumstances of the preliminary examination;

                           —

                           the failure of the Commission to identify the market for wings of aircraft with 100-149 seats as a relevant product market;

                           —

                           the failure of the Commission to analyse the impact of the State aid on competition in the market for wings of aircraft with 100-149 seats;

                           —

                           the Commission’s analysis of the impact of the State aid on competition for finished aircraft with 100-149 seats, which was insufficient and incomplete.

               Second, the applicants contend that the Commission’s identification of a purported market for aerostructures and failure to identify the relevant market for wings of aircraft with 100-149 seats constitutes a manifest error of assessment of the aid’s compatibility with the common market carried out under Article 107(3)(c).

               Third, they argue that the Commission’s failure to analyse the impact of the State aid on the relevant market for wings of aircraft with 100-149 seats constitutes a manifest error of assessment of the aid’s compatibility with the common market carried out under Article 107(3)(c).

               Fourth, they submit that the Commission’s incomplete and flawed analysis of the impact of the State aid on the market for finished aircraft with 100-149 seats constitutes a manifest error of assessment of the aid’s compatibility with the common market carried out under Article 107(3)(c).

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 298, p. 2


title: Case T-183/09: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Club de Golf Peralada (WINE SPA)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/19

         Order of the General Court of 27 April 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Club de Golf Peralada (WINE SPA)
   (Case T-183/09) (1)

   2012/C 184/36
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case T-133/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — Meric v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national figurative and word marks PAM-PAM — Application for Community word mark PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — Meric v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP)
   (Case T-133/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national figurative and word marks PAM-PAM - Application for Community word mark PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 281/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gérard Meric (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Murzeau, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2005 in Case R 250/2004-1, regarding the opposition of the proprietor of the national word and figurative marks PAM-PAM to the registration of the word mark PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP (opposition proceedings No B 505 067).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-111/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Občina Gorje v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Rules on eligibility of operations and expenditure — Temporal condition — Complete exclusion — Reduction of the aid)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Občina Gorje v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-111/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Financing by the EAFRD - Support for rural development - Rules on eligibility of operations and expenditure - Temporal condition - Complete exclusion - Reduction of the aid))
   (2016/C 335/17)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Občina Gorje

      Defendant: Republika Slovenija

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which expenditure is eligible for a European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development contribution to the co-financing of an operation selected by the Managing Authority of the rural development programme in question or under its responsibility only where it is incurred after the adoption of the decision granting such support.

               2.

               Article 71(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005, read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the rejection in its entirety of a payment claim relating to an operation selected for European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development co-financing where certain expenditure incurred in respect of that operation was incurred prior to the adoption of the decision granting such support, where the beneficiary of the support did not intentionally make a false declaration in its payment claim.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-348/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Al-Aqsa v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Action for annulment — Adaptation of heads of claim — Judicial review — Conditions for implementation of a European Union measure freezing funds)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Al-Aqsa v Council
      (Case T-348/07) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Action for annulment - Adaptation of heads of claim - Judicial review - Conditions for implementation of a European Union measure freezing funds)
      (2010/C 288/61)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Heerlen (Netherlands) (represented by: J. Pauw, G. Pulles, A.M. van Eik and M. Uiterwaal, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, G.-J. Van Hegelsom and B. Driessen, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, M. de Mol and Y. de Vries, Agents); and European Commission, (represented by: P. van Nuffel and S. Boelaert, Agents)

         Re:

      Application, originally, in essence, for annulment of Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58), in so far as that act concerns the applicant

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC; Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/445; Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/868; Council Decision 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2008/583; and Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2009/62, in so far as those acts concern Stitching Al-Aqsa;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Stichting Al-Aqsa;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-129/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in N.V. Raverco v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in N.V. Raverco v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-129/05)
   (2005/C 143/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between N.V. Raverco and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC (1) be so interpreted that the objection to the redispatch of a consignment that does not satisfy the import conditions lies in the non-satisfaction of the Community conditions for import or in the conditions that apply at the destination outside the territories listed in Annex I to Directive 97/78/EC agreed with the person responsible for the load?

               2.

               Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC (2), be so interpreted that in all cases in which any one of the checks provided for in Directive 97/78/EC indicates that a consignment of products is likely to constitute a danger to animal or human health this provision imperatively requires the destruction of the consignments of animal products concerned?

               3.

               Must Article 22 of Directive 97/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC, be so interpreted that the mere fact that residues of a substance listed in Annex V to Regulation 2377/90/EC are found in a consignment means that the consignment in question is likely to constitute such a danger to animal or human health as to preclude redispatch?

               4.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, must Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC be so interpreted that it also serves to protect the interests of the third country into which, after redispatch, the consignment is to be imported, even if those interests do not also involve the protection of an interest that can be located in Member States of the EU?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 9.)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, p. 1).


title: Case T-561/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Gutknecht v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Biocidal products — Establishment of a list of active substances on the market — Adoption of regulations by the Commission by virtue of Directive 98/8/EC — Causal link)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Gutknecht v Commission
   (Case T-561/08) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Biocidal products - Establishment of a list of active substances on the market - Adoption of regulations by the Commission by virtue of Directive 98/8/EC - Causal link)
   2011/C 347/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Gutknecht (Kirchheimbolanden, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss suffered following the allegedly unlawful adoption by the Commission of various regulations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) or, in the alternative, following the alleged failure by the Commission to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the right to protection of information supplied under that directive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jürgen Gutknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-305/00: Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      pursuant to the general implementing provisions (GIP)
      by paying interest at a rate of 3,5 % per annum, calculated
      on the basis of the capital sum required to ensure the number
      of years of pensionable service with which she is to be credited     This present action is directed against the Commission’s
      under the Staff Regulations in respect of the periods to which       decision of 11 July 2000 C (2000) 1099), which withdraws
      such interest relates;                                               the grant made to Massalombarda Colombani S.p.A. by
                                                                           Commission Decision No C (88) 1005/275 of 30 June 1988
—     order the repayment to the applicant of any amount                   concerning a grant of aid by the EAGGF, Guidance Section,
      overpaid as a result of the difference between the                   pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 for project
      transferable capital sum together with interest of all kinds         No 88.41.IT.003.0, entitled ‘Modernisation of a fruit and
      and the capital sum required to ensure payment together              vegetable processing establishment in Portomaggiore (Ferrara)’.
      with interest payable to the Commission; and
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           It is pointed out in this regard that one year before Massalom-
                                                                           barda Colombani was acquired by the applicant it was
                                                                           inspected by the Italian Finance Ministry and the Commission
                                                                           jointly for the purpose of verifying the implementation of an
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           EAGGF project, approved by Decision No C (91) 225576 of
                                                                           28 October 1991. During that inspection certain irregularities
                                                                           were discovered in the documentation and payment of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in
                                                                           final part of the grant provided for was suspended. The
Case T-303/00 Caballero Montoya v Commission.
                                                                           following year three other projects were checked. In those
                                                                           cases too the Commission found various irregularities.
                                                                           The applicant stresses the fact that it never received any
                                                                           information from the vendor, just as no information was given
                                                                           concerning the state of the other EAGGF projects undertaken
                                                                           by Massalombarda.
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia
Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     Meanwhile, as a result of the irregularities found in the 1994
                                                                           inspection, in 1997 the Commission proceeded to discontinue
                                                                           one of the projects checked, namely, the project relating to the
                         (Case T-305/00)                                   Massalombarda plant. That company having been acquired by
                                                                           the applicant, it fell to an undertaking which had no connection
                                                                           at all with the matter to bear the burden of the decision.
                         (2000/C 355/73)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        In support of its claims the applicant pleads:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —      that the contested decision is unlawful for want of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        reasoning;
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Società
Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
represented by Maria Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano
Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg              —      that the decision is unlawful and that the factual grounds
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13b Avenue Guillaume.                            were incorrectly determined, in that the Commission
                                                                                ought not to have considered it necessary to specify in its
                                                                                decision to which invoices it was referring;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —      that the Commission’s decision is unlawful on account of
—     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
                                                                                misinterpretation of the obligations undertaken by the
      EC, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2000;
                                                                                recipient and of infringement of the Community rules on
                                                                                the proper working of the market, and also on the criteria
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      for selecting projects suitable for financing;
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/35
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC)                   Action brought on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom Inc.
      No 4235/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                     against the Commission of the European Communities
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-                                      (Case T-310/00)
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). It claims in this respect                               (2000/C 355/75)
      that the irregularities discovered have not affected the
      functioning of the project or the conditions for action,
      that the project has been fully implemented and no
      objection has been made by the Commission in that                                      (Language of the case: English)
      connection and that the defendant has withdrawn the
      aid, when it has the power only to suspend or reduce aid;           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     breach of the principle of proportionality.                         European Communities on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom
                                                                          Inc., Mississippi (USA), represented by K.P.E. Lasok QC, Brian
                                                                          Hartnett and Jean-Yves Art of Squire Sanders & Dempsey,
(1) OJ L 374 of 31. 12. 1988, p. 1.                                       Brussels.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2000)
                                                                                1693 final of 28 June 2000 in Case No COMP/M.1741
                                                                                — MCI WorldCom/Sprint; and
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia
Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European                      —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                          Communities
                         (Case T-306/00)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2000/C 355/74)                                  By Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                          declared incompatible with the common market and the
                                                                          functioning of the EEA agreement a proposed concentration
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        between WorldCom and Sprint Corporation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                on the following grounds:
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Società
Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
represented by Maria Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano               —     The proposed concentration fell outside the scope of the
Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   merger regulation, because the merger thresholds were
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13b Avenue Guillaume.                          not satisfied when the contested decision was adopted;
                                                                          —     The Commission lacked competence to adopt the contest-
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ed decision because, prior to its adoption, the parties had
                                                                                withdrawn their notification and their proposed remedies;
—     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
      EC, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2000 (C (2000)
      1752);                                                              —     The Commission erred in defining the relevant service
                                                                                market;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     The Commission erred in finding that the proposed
                                                                                concentration would create a dominant position;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     The Commission committed a series of procedural errors
                                                                                in the course of its investigation of the notified concen-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                                tration.
forward in Case C-305/00 Conserve Italia v Commission.


title: Case C-384/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 27 June 2017 — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 27 June 2017 — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
   (Case C-384/17)
   (2017/C 318/10)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N

      Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 22 March 2017 in Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15, Euro-Team, a directly applicable provision of the directive?

               2.

               If the requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 22 March 2017 in Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15, Euro-Team, is not a directly applicable provision of the directive:
               does the interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law permit and require the national court and administrative authority to supplement — in the absence of legislative action at national level — the relevant Hungarian legislation in the present proceedings with the substantive criteria of the requirement of proportionality, laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 22 March 2017 in Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15, Euro-Team?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42.


title: Case C-T-196/05: Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Jean-François Vivier against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/31

         Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Jean-François Vivier against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-T-196/05)
   (2005/C 193/51)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 2005 by Jean-François Vivier, residing in Le Petten (Netherlands), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decision fixing the applicant's classification in grade A*6;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was recruited by the Commission as a temporary servant, in a post for which the level of responsibility had been fixed in the vacancy notice by reference to grades A7 to A4, which under the new system are equivalent to grades A*8 to A*12. Upon recruitment, however, his classification was fixed in grade A*6.
   The applicant claims that that decision should be annulled; he maintains that it fails to take account of Article 9 of the Rules applicable to other servants, since he was recruited at a grade below the level of responsibility envisaged for his post. The applicant further contends that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, on which the Commission relies in order to justify its decision on classification, does not apply in his case, as he entered the service after 30 April 2004.


title: Case F-37/13: Action brought on 26 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/59

         Action brought on 26 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-37/13)
   2013/C 207/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of OLAF (the European Anti-fraud Office) rejecting the request for renewal of the applicant’s contract, following the annulment of that decision by a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal and a claim for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 8 August 2012 rejecting the request for renewal of the applicant’s contract;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the implied rejection, on 12 August 2010, of the request for renewal of the applicant’s contract, in the event that its annulment is called into question in an appeal before the General Court of the European Union;

               —

               and, so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority’s decision of 17 January 2013 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 21 September 2012;

               —

               grant the applicant, in respect of the material harm suffered, a sum corresponding to the difference between the remuneration which he would have received had he been able to obtain the renewal of his contract as a member of the temporary staff at OLAF for another four years and the remuneration which he has received since May 2011 (taking account of his pension rights and his normal career progression);

               —

               compensate the applicant for the material harm suffered by him on account of the loss of a chance of obtaining a contract for an indefinite term, fixed on equitable principles and provisionally at EUR 250 000;

               —

               grant the sum fixed on equitable principles and provisionally at EUR 10 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-108/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2013 — Société Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2013 — Société Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt
   (Case C-108/13)
   2013/C 141/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Mac GmbH

      Defendant: Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

      Question referred

   Do Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national legislation which makes, inter alia, the grant of a parallel import marketing authorisation for a plant protection product subject to the condition that the product in question have, in the exporting State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, (1) and which consequently does not permit the grant of a parallel import marketing authorisation for a product which has, in the exporting State, a parallel import marketing authorisation and which is identical to a product authorised in the importing State?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).


title: Case C-536/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 25(2) — Directory enquiry services and directories — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 12 — Directories of subscribers — Making available personal data concerning subscribers for the purposes of the provision of publicly available directory enquiry services and directories — Subscriber’s consent — Distinction on the basis of the Member State in which publicly available directory enquiry services and directories are provided — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)
   (Case C-536/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 25(2) - Directory enquiry services and directories - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 12 - Directories of subscribers - Making available personal data concerning subscribers for the purposes of the provision of publicly available directory enquiry services and directories - Subscriber’s consent - Distinction on the basis of the Member State in which publicly available directory enquiry services and directories are provided - Principle of non-discrimination))
   (2017/C 151/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV

      Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

      Intervening parties: European Directory Assistance NV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘requests’ in that article, covers also requests made by an undertaking, established in a Member State other than that in which the undertakings which assign telephone numbers to subscribers are established, which requests the relevant information possessed by those undertakings in order to provide publicly available telephone directory enquiry services and directories in that Member State and/or in other Member States.

               2.

               Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as precluding an undertaking which assigns telephone numbers to subscribers, and which is obliged under national legislation to request those subscribers’ consent to the use of data relating to them for the purposes of supplying directory enquiry services and directories, from differentiating in the request for those subscribers’ consent to that use according to the Member State in which the undertakings requesting the information referred to in that provision provide those services.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-221/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2007 — Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2007 — Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-221/07)
   (2007/C 183/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Question referred
   Are the benefit restrictions laid down in German social compensation law under Paragraph 64e of the Bundesversorgungsgesetz (Federal Law on war pensions — BVG) for those entitled to pensions who have their residence or habitual abode in Poland as a new EU accession state consistent with higher-ranking Community law, in particular from the point of view of freedom of movement?


title: Case T-558/13: Action brought on 24 October 2013 — FSA v OHIM — Motokit Veículos e Acessórios (FSA K-FORCE)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/23

         Action brought on 24 October 2013 — FSA v OHIM — Motokit Veículos e Acessórios (FSA K-FORCE)
   (Case T-558/13)
   2014/C 24/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FSA Srl (Busnago, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli and M. Cartella, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA (Vagos, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2013 given in Case R 436/2012-2;

               —

               Order that the word mark FSA K-FORCE be registered;

               —

               Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark FSA K-FORCE — Community trade mark registration No 9 191 909

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) CTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the registration of the CTM invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR and Article 75 CTMR.


title: Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between Roland Bieber and the European Parliament (Case C-284/98 P)

text:
10.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/3
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  French law, established in Paris, represented by Jacques
                       (Third Chamber)                               Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
                        of 16 July 1998                              Rue Mathias Hardt, Ð appeal against the order of the
in Case C-252/97 P: N v. Commission of the European                  Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 September
                        Communities (1)                              1997 in Case T-83/97 Sateba v. Commission [1997] ECR
                                                                     II-1523, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
 (Appeal Ð Disciplinary measures Ð Removal from post)                party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
                         (98/C 312/05)                               European Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
               (Language of the case: French)                        President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and K. M.
                                                                     Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                     Registrar, has made an order on 17 July 1998, the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       operative part of which is as follows:
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-252/97 P: N, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Xavier MagneÂe, of the Brussels Bar, with an address              2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the present
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis                       proceedings.
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 1997 in Case
T-273/94 N v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-289, seeking
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
proceedings being the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by the European
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J. C.                 Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 May
Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.              1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made              of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
an order on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament
as follows:                                                                                (Case C-284/98 P)
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                  (98/C 312/07)
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
                                                                     1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.                                             of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
                                                                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 24 July 1998 by the European Parliament, represented
                                                                     by JoseÂ-Luis Rufas Quintana and Evelyn Waldherr, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  the Registry of the General Secretariat of the European
                                                                     Parliament, Tower Building.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                        of 17 July 1998                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
in Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba) v. Commission of the European                  Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
                        Communities (1)                                  Instance of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96 Bieber v.
                                                                         Parliament (1),
(Appeal Ð Public supply contracts Ð Closure of the file
concerning a complaint regarding the conduct of the
                    contracting authority)                           Ð alternatively, annul points 2, 3 and 6 of the operative
                                                                         part of that judgment so as to reduce the period in
                         (98/C 312/06)                                   respect of which the European Parliament is ordered
                                                                         to compensate the respondent to the period from
               (Language of the case: French)                            15 June 1995 to 13 December 1995,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð grand the form of order sought by the European
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Parliament in the proceedings at first instance, and
In Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en                Ð make a ruling as to costs in accordance with the
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba), a company incorporated under                      applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.10.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         to a semen collection centre as laid down in
                                                                            paragraph 1(b) of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive
Infringement of Community law, and in particular:                           88/407/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to question 1 is affirmative:
Ð disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice with
     regard to reinstatement following the termination of a
     period of leave on personal grounds: according to the             2. Should the transitional rule set out in Article 20 of
     Court of Justice, an institution is not obliged to                     Directive 88/407/EEC be construed as meaning that it
     reinstate an official on the first occasion that the                   is applicable by analogy to semen which was collected
     requirements of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations are                and processed prior to 1 July 1994?
     fulfilled if the official's conduct is such as to cast
     doubt on the seriousness of his intention to make                 If the answer to question 1 is affirmative and the answer
     himself available to the institution (2). The Court of            to question 2 negative:
     First Instance wrongly allowed itself to be guided by
     its own interpretation of Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff           3. Is Directive 93/60/EEC invalid as being contrary to
     Regulations of Officials (3), with the result that it made             general principles of law, in particular the principle of
     incomplete findings of fact and declined to accept                     the protection of legitimate expectations and the
     material evidence,                                                     principle of proportionality, in so far as that Directive
                                                                            does not provide for transitional measures to counter
Ð disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice with                    obstacles to intra-Community trade in the semen of
     regard to non-contractual liability: the Court of First                bulls which had already, in accordance with the
     Instance failed to take into account the extent to                     provisions then in force, been admitted to an approved
     which the respondent contributed to the delay in his                   semen collection centre before Directive 93/60/EEC
     reinstatement.                                                         was adopted?
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998, p. 25.                                        If the answer to question 1 is negative:
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 October 1977 in
    Joined Cases 126/75, 34/96 and 92/96 Giry v. Commission            4. The provision in Article 1(8) of Directive 93/60/EEC
    [1977] ECR 1937, paragraphs 7 and 20.
                                                                            amended the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(b)
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 1993 in Case
    T-40/90 Giordani v. Commission [1993] ECR II-721.
                                                                            of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 88/407/EEC
                                                                            (The animals may not previously have been kept in
                                                                            other herds of a lower status') to read The animals
                                                                            may not previously have been kept in one or more
                                                                            herds of a lower status'. Must this amendment be
                                                                            construed as being exclusively a clarification or as a
                                                                            substantive amendment to the requirements applying
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                       in regard to the admission of bovine animals to an
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven in the case of K. V. S.                       approved semen collection centre?
International BV v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
                           en Visserij                                 (1) OJ L 194, 22.7.1988, p. 10.
                        (Case C-301/98)                                (2) OJ L 186, 28.7.1993, p. 28.
                         (98/C 312/08)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 17 July 1998 from
the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven                          Appeal brought on 4 August 1998 by David T. Keeling
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry), which was               against the order made on 8 June 1998 by the Third
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1998, for a                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
preliminary ruling in the case of K. V. S. International BV            Communities in Case T-148/97 (1) between David T.
v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij                     Keeling and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and                                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Fisheries) on the following questions:                                                       (Case C-305/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 312/09)
1. Must Article 3(b) of Directive 88/407/EEC (1) be
     construed as meaning that semen from a bull which
     was admitted to an approved semen collection centre               An appeal against the order made on 8 June 1998 by the
     before the adoption of amending Directive 93/60/                  Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     EEC (2) on the ground that it satisfied the admission             European Communities in Case T-148/97 between David
     requirements in force at that time does not (any                  T. Keeling and the Office for Harmonisation in the
     longer) satisfy the condition set out in Article 3(b) of          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought
     the Directive if the animal in question fails, at the time        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     when certification of the semen is applied for, to                on 4 August 1998 by David T. Keeling, of Alicante, Spain,
     satisfy the amended requirement governing admission               represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, instructed by


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2001 in Case C-239/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)): Nachi Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping measures — Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 — Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan — Reference for a preliminary ruling on whether that regulation is valid — Failure by the plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking annulment of the regulation)

text:
C 173/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.6.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    nature of the anti-dumping duty applicable under Article 1(2) of
                                                                           Regulation No 2849/92 to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi
                        of 15 February 2001                                Fujikoshi Corporation and imported by Nachi Europe GmbH.
in Case C-239/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)): Nachi Europe
                GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)
(Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping measures —
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 — Modifi-
cation of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball
bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm
originating in Japan — Reference for a preliminary ruling
on whether that regulation is valid — Failure by the
plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   annulment of the regulation)
                                                                                of 20 February 2001
                           (2001/C 173/12)
                                                                           in Case C-192/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                    (Language of the case: German)                         Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary
                                                                           of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur,
                                                                                intervener: Justice (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Citizenship of the Union — Nationality of a Member State
                                                                           — Declarations by the United Kingdom concerning the
In Case C-239/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              definition of the term ‘national’ — British Overseas Citizen)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
(Finance Court) Düsseldorf for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Nachi Europe                                         (2001/C 173/13)
GmbH and Hauptzollamt Krefeld — on the validity of
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of
28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping                                      (Language of the case: English)
duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external
diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by
Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2) —                        In Case C-192/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and                    Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        Office) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,          for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, intervener: Justice — on
15 February 2001, in which it has ruled:                                   the interpretation of Articles 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                           after amendment, Articles 17 EC and 18 EC), of the Declaration
                                                                           by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases
                                                                           and Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’,
T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v
                                                                           annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning the
Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Case C-245/95 P
                                                                           Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of
                                                                           United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 Sep-
                                                                           European Communities (OJ 1972 L 73, p. 196), of the new
tember 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
                                                                           Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of
of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm
                                                                           Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of the
originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 in
                                                                           term ‘nationals’ (OJ 1983 C 23, p. 1), and of Declaration No 2
so far as it fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings
                                                                           on nationality of a Member State, annexed to the Final Act of
manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation.
                                                                           the Treaty on European Union (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 98) —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
An importer of those products, such as Nachi Europe GmbH, which            C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
undoubtedly had a right of action before the Court of First Instance       (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P Puissochet,
to seek the annulment of the anti-dumping duty imposed on those            P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
goods, but which did not exercise that right, cannot subsequently          Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
plead the invalidity of that anti-dumping duty before a national           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 2001,
court. In such a case, the national court is bound by the definitive       in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-569/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 94/22/EC — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons — Non-discriminatory access)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-569/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 94/22/EC - Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons - Non-discriminatory access)
   2013/C 225/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, M. Drwięcki and. B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect and/or incomplete transposition of Articles 2(2), 3(1) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3) — Non-discriminatory access to those activities and to the exercise thereof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that access to activities relating to the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons is free of all discrimination as between interested entities and that the authorisations to carry out those activities are granted following a procedure in which all interested entities may submit applications in accordance with criteria published in the Official Journal of the European Union prior to the beginning of the period in which applications may be submitted, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(2) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case C-47/06: Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-47/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/70)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.


title: Case C-330/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för övre Norrland by order of that court of 22 August 2005 in the case of Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg v Lokal åklagare I Haparanda

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för övre Norrland by order of that court of 22 August 2005 in the case of Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg v Lokal åklagare I Haparanda
   (Case C-330/05)
   (2005/C 271/31)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hovrätten för övre Norrland of 22 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg and Lokal åklagare I Haparanda on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC (‘the Directive’) allow Member States generally to exempt heating oil from the application of Article 8 of the Directive, so that a Member State may provide that a private individual who purchases heating oil himself for his own use in another Member State where it was released for consumption, and transports it himself to the Member State of destination must pay excise duty there, regardless of the means of transport used to transport the heating oil?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is Article 9(3) of the Directive compatible with the fundamental principles in the Treaty on free movement of goods and the principle of proportionality, in the light of the fact that the purpose of Article 9(3) of the Directive appears to be to deter private individuals from transporting mineral oils by providing for a derogation from the principle that where goods are purchased by private individuals for their own use and transported by them excise duty is to be charged in the Member State in which they are acquired, and is such a purpose compatible with the legal basis which the Council relied on for the Directive, or is Article 9(3) invalid?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the transport by a private individual of 3 000 litres of heating oil in three ‘IBC’ containers, which can as such be approved for the commercial transport of dangerous goods including liquids, in the hold of a covered van constitute transport by atypical means within the meaning of Article 9(3) of the Directive?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 7(4) of the Directive for a Member State's legislation to provide that a private individual, who purchases heating oil himself for his own use in another Member State where it was released for consumption and moves it himself to the Member State of destination by atypical means of transport within the meaning of Article 9(3) of the Directive, must lodge a guarantee for payment of excise duty and carry a simplified accompanying document and a certificate of the lodging of a guarantee for excise duty when the goods are moved?


title: Case T-846/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QF v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/31

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QF v Commission
   (Case T-846/16)
   (2017/C 053/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: QF (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet and A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should;

               —

               declare that the Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), granted by Spain to certain football clubs, infringes Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU, since the possibility of consolidating accounts brought about by the authorisation of four clubs to participate in different sports under Law 10/1990, as well as the application of the reduced tax rate under the same corporate tax, also constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market and, therefore, should be declared to be such by the European Commission.

               —

               consequently, provide for the withdrawal/annulment of the measure and require the Kingdom of Spain to recover from the beneficiaries the aid that is incompatible with the internal market, and order it to pay the costs in that regard.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-845/16 QG v Commission.


title: Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Carla Rinaldin against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-138/97)

text:
No C 228/ 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Kelvin William                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
Stephens against the Commission of the European                              decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                              Communities                                    rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                          ( Case T-137/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/41 )                             — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 ( x ).
by Kelvin William Stephens, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an              (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996                        Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Marc Blijweert and
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                      others against the Commission of the European
     consideration to the possible application of                                                    Communities
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                ( Case T-139/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                                            ( 97/C 228/43 )
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                         by Marc Blijweert, residing at Sint Pietersleeuw ( Belgium ),
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Manuel Carvalhosa, residing in Brussels, Rita Lehmann,
Case T-16/97 H.                                                          residing in Moscow, Annette Mills, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         Glenys Nichol, residing in Brussels, Jeffery Piper, residing
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    at Sint Stevens-Woluwe ( Belgium ), Francisco Sentieiro,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, and Guy Thiry, residing at Maleves
                                                                         ( Berlgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the
                                                                         Liege Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Carla Rinaldin
                                                                         The applicants claims that the Court should :
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-138/97)
                              ( 97/C 228/42 )
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
                                                                              to be regraded,
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
An action against the Commission of the European                              administrative complaint,
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
 by Carla Rinaldin, residing at Corgeno di Vergiate (Italy),             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                          Case T-16/97 (').
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                       O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,