title: Case C-187/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 April 2014  — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 April 2014 — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
   (Case C-187/14)
   2014/C 202/13
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: DSV Road A/S

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is Article 203(1) of the Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that there is removal from customs supervision in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, if it is assumed that (a) each of the two generated transits in 2007 and 2008 respectively concerned the same goods, or (b) it cannot be documented that they were the same goods?

               2)

               Is the Article 204 of the Customs Code (2) to be interpreted as meaning that customs debt arises in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, if it is assumed that (a) each of the two generated transits in 2007 and 2008 respectively concerned the same goods, or (b) it cannot be documented that they were the same goods?

               3)

               Is Article 859 of the implementing provisions (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, there is an infringement of obligations which has had no significant effect on the proper course of the customs procedure, if it is assumed that (a) each of the two generated transits in 2007 and 2008 respectively concerned the same goods, or (b) it cannot be documented that they were the same goods?

               4)

               Can the first Member State into which the goods were imported refuse the taxable person designated by the Member State a deduction of the import VAT pursuant to Article 168(e) of the VAT Directive (4), where the import VAT is charged to a carrier of the goods in question who is not the importer and owner of the goods but has simply transported and been in charge of the customs dispatch of the consignment as part of its freight forwarding operations, which are subject to VAT?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

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


title: Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-161/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 208/5
     90/313/EC ( ) of 7 July 1990 on freedom of access to             comply with the Directive, and to inform the Commission
     information on the environment, the Hellenic Republic            accordingly.
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
     and that Directive,                                              Since the Hellenic Republic has not hitherto informed the
                                                                      Commission of the adoption of those measures,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       notwithstanding the letter before action of 9 August 1993
                                                                      and the reasoned opinion of 7 June 1994 addressed to it, the
                                                                      Commission seeks by this application a declaration that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 91 / 156/EC the
                                                                      third paragraph of Article 1 89 and under the first paragraph
                                                                      of Article 5 of the Treaty, and under the provisions of the
Member States were required by 1 April 1993 to adopt the              Directive .
laws , regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with the Directive, and to inform the Commission               ( ] ) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
accordingly.
Since the Hellenic Republic has not hitherto informed
the Commission of the adoption of those measures,
notwithstanding the letter before action of 12 March 1993
and the reasoned opinion of 1 9 July 1 994 addressed to it, the
                                                                      Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Commission by this application seeks a declaration that the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                 ( Case C-161 /95 )
third paragraph of Article 1 89 and under the first paragraph                                      ( 95/C 208/ 11 )
of Article 5 of the Treaty, and under the provisions of the
Directive .                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990 , p . 56 .                            22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                      Centre, Kirchberg .
Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the                The applicant claims that the Court should :
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 — declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to
                        ( Case C-160/95 )                                   the Commission within the requisite period of time the
                          ( 95/C 208/ 10 )                                  laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            necessary in order to comply with Council Directive
                                                                            91 /271 /EC ( l ) of 21 March 1991 concerning urban
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                  waste water treatment, the Hellenic Republic has failed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that
22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European                               Directive,
Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 91 /271 /EC the
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Member States were required by 30 June 1993 to adopt the
— declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    the Commission within the requisite period of time the            comply with the Directive, and to inform the Commission
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions                   accordingly.
    necessary in order to comply with Council Directive               Since the Hellenic Republic has not hitherto informed the
     91 / 156/EC (') of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
                                                                      Commission of the adoption of those measures,
     75/442/EC on waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                      notwithstanding the letter before action of 9 August 1993
    fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that               and the reasoned opinion of 25 May 1994 addressed to it,
    Directive,
                                                                      the Commission seeks by this application a declaration that
                                                                      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      the third paragraph of Article 189 and under the first
                                                                      paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, and under the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   provisions of the Directive .
In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 91 / 156/EC the             (») OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
Member States were required by 1 April 1993 to adopt the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to


title: Case C-299/02: Action brought on 23 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
12.10.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 247/7
(b)   Selection criteria for mill samples for inspection                 So far as concerns the selection criteria for identifying ‘non-
                                                                         compliant’ producers to be inspected on the spot, the applicant
                                                                         states that such criteria, agreed with the competent authority
                                                                         of the Italian State, are based essentially on examination of the
                                                                         agronomic characteristics of the olive groves arising from the
                                                                         register of olive cultivation available in Italy, which thus fulfils
So far as concerns selection criteria for mill samples for               the purpose for which such a register was provided for by
inspection, the applicant points out that the various parameters         Community legislation.
are laid down in the work schedules submitted beforehand for
approval by the Member State and the European Commission.
In particular, the Commission was in a position to know of               (1 ) Commission Decision 2002/523/EC of 28 June 2002 excluding
                                                                              from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
those criteria and it is unacceptable that its services should                Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
argue, in support of the claim that those criteria were not                   Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002
transparent, that ‘even where the Commission’s services receive               L 170, p. 73.
and approve the schedules submitted by the inspection bodies,            (2 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 of 12 December 1990
that does not mean that they cannot criticise the management                  on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the
system following an in-depth analysis on the spot’, inasmuch                  buying-in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention
as it is no more than a formal interpretation of the Com-                     agencies, OJ 1990 L 350, p. 43.
mission’s own powers and a breach of the obligation to                   (3 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 27/85 of 4 January 1985 laying
implement the aid provided for by under Community law. The                    down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC)
great importance attributed by the Commission to the allegedly                No 2262/84 laying down special measures in respect of olive oil,
                                                                              OJ 1985 L 4, p. 5.
inadequate analysis carried out by the Italian authorities of
‘non-compliant’ producers in order to identify those mills most
‘at risk’ which ought to be inspected is inconsistent with
institutional procedure as laid down, moreover, in Community
regulations (Regulation (EEC) No 27/85) ( 3), which enable the
Member States and the European Community to guide the
work of the inspection bodies by means of the approval or                Action brought on 23 August 2002 by the Commission
modification of the draft schedules in each financial year.              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
                                                                                (Case C-299/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/12)
(c)   Inspection of producers                                            An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 23 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by K.H.I. Simonsson and
                                                                         H.M.H. Speyaert, acting as Agents.
The Commission complains that very few inspections were                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
carried out at the premises of ‘non-compliant’ producers and
that such inspections were carried out excessively late and that         (1) declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force
the most ‘at risk’ cases were not checked. The number of                        Article 311 of the Wetboek van Koophandel (Commercial
inspections carried out in each financial year at the premises                  Code) and Article 8:169 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil
of various producers is set out in the draft work schedule                      Code), imposing requirements with regard to:
drawn up by the agency and approved by the Italian State and
by the European Commission. As regards the number of                            —    the nationality of the shareholders and directors of
inspections carried out, the agency did not fail to fulfil the                       any company owning a sea-going vessel which they
obligations accepted and approved by the national authorities                        wish to have entered in the Netherlands register; and
and the Commission’s inspectors. So far as concerns the
alleged delay in carrying out inspections of ‘non-compliant’                    —    the nationality and place of residence of the directors
producers, the applicant states that such inspections of olive                       of companies owning sea-going vessels entered in
producers and of surplus production cannot be carried out                            the Netherlands register and of the natural persons
until requests for aid are submitted by the producers them-                          responsible for the day-to-day management of the
selves and after publication in the Official Journal of yields in                    establishment from which, in the Netherlands, the
similar areas. That means that, at the earliest, there can be an                     shipping business necessary for entry of a sea-going
inspection in November or December of the financial year                             vessel in the Netherlands register is conducted,
following that in which aid to be checked is requested, that is
to say when there is already another olive crop and harvest                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
following the one which has given rise to the aid request.                      obligations under Articles 43 and 48 EC;
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
(2) order the Netherlands Government to pay the costs.                 Action brought on 26 August 2002 by the Hellenic
                                                                       Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (Case C-300/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/13)
(As to the conditions concerning the status as Community
nationals of the shareholders and directors of companies,
pursuant to Article 311(3) of the Wetboek van Koophandel)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
It follows from the wording of Article 48 EC that a company’s
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
connection with the Community may not be based on the
nationality of the persons owning or managing it, but rather           Communities on 26 August 2002 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                       represented by Ioannis Khalkias and Georgios Kanellopoulos.
on the following circumstances:
(1) incorporation of the company in accordance with the
       laws of a Member State; and                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2) maintenance by the company of its registered office,               —     annul Decision C(2002) 2281 final of 26 June 2002 (1)
       central administration or principal place of business                 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
       within the Community.                                                 incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
                                                                             Section of the EAGGF, in so far as it relates to financial
                                                                             corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic in
A condition requiring possession of the status of a Community                the arable crops sector;
national cannot constitute an appropriate means by which a
Member State may exercise control, as required by Article 91
of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, over sea-going             —     allow the present application and annul or, in the
vessels which fly its flag. The Commission is unable to see                  alternative, amend the contested Commission decision
what advantage the authority of a Member State having                        with regard to its particular chapters concerning financial
responsibility for the shipping register may derive from the                 corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Greek, Finnish or French nationality of the actual managers of
a shipping company which would be denied to it if those
managers were Japanese or American nationals. The argument
that, in order for the State whose flag a vessel flies to be able
to exercise actual control over that vessel, the shareholders
must be Community nationals, is equally disputable.                    Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     Incorrect legislative interpretation;
(As to the condition concerning the status as Community
                                                                       —     incorrect interpretation and application of Article 5(2)(c)
nationals of the persons responsible for the day-to-day man-
                                                                             of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70;
agement and of the directors of a shipping company, pursuant
to Article 311(1)(c) of the Wetboek van Koophandel and
Article 8:169 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek)                               —     incorrect assessment of the facts;
The Commission refers to its submissions concerning its first          —     defective statement of reasons;
plea in law. It maintains that it can find no justification for a
measure whereby a company may have a sea-going vessel
registered in the Netherlands where the day-to-day manage-             —     breach of the principle of proportionality.
ment of the company is entrusted to a Community national,
regardless of the latter’s place of residence, but prohibiting
registration where such day-to-day management is entrusted
                                                                       (1 ) OJ No L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 77.
to a national of a third country who resides in the Netherlands.


title: Case T-624/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery, by way of compensation, of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-624/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery, by way of compensation, of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 121/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, relating to recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 275 984,23, and of debit note No 2016-916 of 5 July 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision and to the notification of those measures by the Director-General for Finance of 6 July 2016.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-56/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA
   (Case C-56/14) (1)

   (2015/C 146/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-150/99: Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier
                                                                           Francesco Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars,
    declare that                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                           Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.
    1. the applicant is entitled to a survivor’s pension based
          on 35 % of a Grade A 6/8 salary with annual adjust-
          ments,                                                           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    2. the applicant is not bound to repay the amount of                   — annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of 4 March
          DM 40 518 .61 pursuant to the Commission’s decision                   1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant
          of 21 September 1998,                                                 to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be
                                                                                decided in the course of the proceedings;
    and order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who was divorced from her husband, a
Community official who died in 1973, and was entitled to be
maintained by him from that time, receives a widow’s                       The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of
pension from the Commission. The applicant claims that the                 4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one
Commission has already committed numerous administrative                   of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission
errors in her case on previous occasions.                                  Decision C (93) 3395 of 26 November 1992 concerning grant
                                                                           of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project
The Commission informed her by letter of 20 August 1998                    No 92.ES.06.031 entitled ‘Demonstrative project for the
that her monthly pension payment had been incorrect since                  multiple optimisation of Vetiver (Vetiveria Zizanioides) A in the
February 1994 and did not correspond to the decision in the                Mediterranean area’.
relevant amendment notice, pursuant to which she is entitled
to a survivor’s pension of 26.56498 %, not 35 %, of a Grade
A 6/8 salary. She was therefore informed that this oversight               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
would be corrected in the statement for September 1998 and                 Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.
that the situation with regard to the overpaid sums would be
regularized.
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                               laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
The applicant claims that the Commission misapplied the                        2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
provisions cited by her of Article 41 of Annex VIII to the Staff               24.12.1994, p. 11).
Regulations and Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. As was
correctly pointed out in the notice of complaint, the amount
of a pension may be reassessed in the event of an error or
omission in the calculation thereof. In exercising that discre-
tion, it is imperative that the Commission weigh up its interests
against those of the person concerned, which it did not do.
Furthermore, a lawful administrative act conferring a benefit
may not be annulled and even an unlawful administrative act
may only be annulled within a reasonable time.
                                                                           Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. —
                                                                           Tecnologias Agrarias e Industriales — against Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-151/99)
Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. against                                          (1999/C 246/84)
          Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-150/99)                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                         (1999/C 246/83)                                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        — Tecnologias agrarias e industralIes — represented by
                                                                           Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier Francesco
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars, with an
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
European Communities on 21 June l 999 by Tecnagrind s.l.,                  Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 March 1998 in Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice v. Commission of the European Communities (Temporary member of staff - Suspension - Suspension of operation - No need to give a decision)

text:
2.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/17
1. dismisses the application for interim measures;                Communities in accordance with Article 47(1) of the EC
                                                                  Statute of the Court of Justice.
2. reserves the costs.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities of 25 November 1997 (K (97) 3620),
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð declare that the applicant's case is one of hardship
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
                      of 2 March 1998                                  No 404/93.
in Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice v. Commission of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  European Communities
(Temporary member of staff Ð Suspension Ð Suspension              In 1991 the applicant made investments in a banana-
        of operation Ð No need to give a decision)                ripening centre. In its view there had at that time been no
                                                                  grounds at all to suppose that the market in bananas
                        (98/C 137/37)
                                                                  might be affected by Commission intervention or other
                                                                  regulatory measures. When the proposal for the
              (Language of the case: French)                      organisation of the market in bananas was put forward all
                                                                  the applicant's investments had already been made. The
In Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice, a member of the               reference years used as a basis, which have caused the
temporary staff at the Commission of the European                 applicant heavy losses, unfairly place it at a disadvantage.
Communities, represented by Ariane Tornel and Jean-NoeÈl
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        Furthermore, the organisation of the market has resulted
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de                   in improper interference with the applicant's business
Cessange, against Commission of the European                      enterprise which has been set up and carried on, because a
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                special sacrifice is expected of the applicant, in contrast to
Currall) Ð application for suspension of the operation of         other traders. It simultaneously follows, moreover, that the
the decision of the Commission of the European                    applicant and its shareholders and management are being
Communities of 12 November 1997 seeking to maintain               denied the right freely to choose their trade, without
the suspension imposed on the applicant pursuant to               reasons which would justify such a difference in treatment
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and the second                being apparent.
paragraph of Article 49(1) of the conditions of
employment of other servants of the European
Communities Ð the President of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 2 March 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                  Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the
1. there is no need to adjudicate on the application;                            Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-36/98)
2. costs are reserved.
                                                                                (98/C 137/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Action brought on 3 February 1998 by Hermanek &
                                                                  Communities on 2 March 1998 by Aruba, represented by
    Rademacher GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                  Mr P. V. F. Bos and Mr M. Slotboom, with an address for
                  European Communities
                                                                  service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Loesch & Wolter,
                       (Case T-26/98)                             11, rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 137/38)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  Ð annul Council Decision 97/803 of 24 November
An action against the Commission of the European                       1997 (1) pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Treaty,
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February
1998 by Hermanek & Rademacher GmbH, Cologne,                      or, in the alternative,
represented by, and with an address for service at the
offices of, Hubert Weber, Rechtsanwalt, 14, Zülpicher             Ð annul paragraphs 31, 32, 53 (in so far as they concern
Platz, Cologne. The application was transmitted to the                 Article 232(1), first and second indent, of Council
Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European                Decision 91/482/EEC), 54 and 55 of Article 1 of


title: Case T-435/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — IEM Erga — Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/43

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — IEM Erga — Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias v Commission
   (Case T-435/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/87
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: IEM Erga — Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Sofokleous, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the preparatory act of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research of 7 May 2010 notifying the applicant of the decision to issue it with a demand for payment;

               —

               annul demand for payment (debit note) No 3241004968 of the European Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the preparatory act of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research of 7 May 2010 notifying it of the decision to issue it with a demand for payment and the annulment of demand for payment (debit note) No 3241004968 of 14 July 2010 which was issued under Contract FAIR-CT98-9544.
   In support of its pleas, the applicant puts forward the following grounds:

               —

               lack of lawful basis and lack of competence inasmuch as the contested measures, which were adopted in the context of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, are administrative measures adopted without a lawful basis and without competence, because that contract, which is governed, pursuant to Article 10 thereof, exclusively by Greek law, does not grant the Commission the right to determine unilaterally and recover autonomously its claims arising from the contract;

               —

               lack of lawful reasoning, lack of proof and denial of the Commission’s assertions inasmuch as, as is shown by the General Court’s judgment in Case T-7/05 and the invoices issued by the applicant for the supply of services, the sums which the applicant received from Parthenon A.E. in respect of those invoices constituted part of its remuneration for the supply of the services set out in the invoices and not an advance payment which Parthenon A.E. had received from the Commission as the applicant’s representative;

               —

               conrtradictory reasoning in the contested measures;

               —

               lack of lawful reasoning and lack of proof inasmuch as the arguments by which the Commission justifies the contested measures are not demonstrated either by the grounds of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-7/05 Commission v Parthenon A.E. or by the invoices adduced before the General Court or the other evidence.


title: Case T-204/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015  — Spain v Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 — Methods for the detection of lipophilic toxins in bivalve molluscs — Replacement of the mouse bioassay method by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method — Article 168 TFEU — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-204/11) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 - Methods for the detection of lipophilic toxins in bivalve molluscs - Replacement of the mouse bioassay method by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method - Article 168 TFEU - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 096/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently S. Martínez-Lage Sobredo and lastly A. Rubio González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and A. Marcoulli, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 of 10 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards recognised testing methods for detecting marine biotoxins in live bivalve molluscs (OJ 2011 L 6, p. 3).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Società Eridania SpA and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-178/96)

text:
No C 54/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Societa Eridania                  areas in which production is less than consumption , sugar
SpA and Others against the Council of the European                     manufacturers pay a higher minimum price for beet than
                                 Union                                 that paid by manufacturers in non-deficit areas . The scope
                          ( Case T-178/96 )                            of the original system was to enable producers in countries
                                                                       where there is a surplus to supply deficit countries, most
                             ( 97/C 54/36 )                            of the essential transport costs being covered.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       The applicants reject the view that Italy should continue
An action against the Council of the European Union was                to be considered a deficit area . According to the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             applicants , during the last marketing years taken as a
Communities on 8 November 1996 by Societa Eridiana                     whole, production exceeded consumption by five ninths
SpA, whose registered office is at Genoa ( Italy ), and                while average production per marketing year and average
Societa ISI ( Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale           consumption per marketing year was perfectly balanced .
SpA ), whose registered office is at Padua ( Italy ), of the           However, during the last three marketing years, average
Eridania Group, Societa Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of              production has exceeded average consumption by some
SECI ( Societa Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA ),                 30 000 tonnes . In view of this, the fact that regional prices
whose registered office is at Bologna ( Italy ), Societa               are applied to Italy means, according to the applicants,
Sadam Castiglionese SpA, whose registered office is at                 that the system no longer has its original function, having
Bologna ( Italy ), and Societa Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose                become a gratuitous award paid to beet producers charged
registered office is at Bologna ( Italy ), of the Sadam                totally and exclusively to Italian sugar manufacturers .
Zuccherifici Group, Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
whose registered office is at Termoli ( Italy ), and Societa           The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those
SFIR ( Societa Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA ),                  relied on in Case T-l 68 /95 Eridiana and Others . More in
whose registered office is at Cesena ( Italy ), represented by         particular, the contested Regulation is unlawful on the
Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland,              grounds of belated adoption, inadequate statement of
Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta , of the Genoa Bar, with            reasons, arbitrary classification of Italy as a deficit area
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                and misuse of powers .
Arsene Kronshagen, 12 boulevard de la Foire .
                                                                       The inapplicability of the abovementioned provisions of
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 is relied upon only in so far
                                                                       as the grounds set out above should not be sufficient for
— declare the action admissible,                                       the annulment of the contested Regulation and, in
                                                                       particular, if it should be held that Italy is a deficit area .
— declare void or annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and
    174 of the EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC ) No 1580/96 of
    30 July 1996 in so far as it concerns the applicants or,
    in the alternative, declare void or annul that
    Regulation erga omnes, in particular as regards
    Article 1 ( f),                                                    Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Juana de la
                                                                       Cruz Elena Vela Palacios against the Economic and Social
— declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 1 84 of the EC                                          Committee
    Treaty, Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981
    and subsequent amendments thereto, in so far as it                                         ( Case T-183 /96 )
    concerns the applicants, in particular as regards                                             ( 97/C 54/37 )
    Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 ( 2 ),
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
— order the Council, pursuant to Article 178 and the
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to               An action against the Economic and Social Committee
    make good all the damage caused to the applicants,                 was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    taking into account accrued interest and currency                  European Communities on 14 November 1996 by Juana
    fluctuations,                                                      de la Cruz Elena Vela Palacios, residing in Brussels,
                                                                       represented by Guy San Bartolome Sarrey, of the Brussels
— take any other measure which the Court deems                         Bar, with an address for service at 174 , avenue Louise ,
    necessary in order to determine the damage caused to               Brussels .
    the applicants,
— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings .              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — declare the application admissible and well founded,
A number of Italian sugar manufacturing companies                      — annul Decision 27/96A of the Secretary-General , the
challenge the new system relating to the sugar sector                       final decision in disciplinary procedure 1 /1995
inasmuch as it continues to consider Italy to be a deficit                  concerning the content of the note dated 10 January
country and, consequently, maintains the regional system                    1995 sent to her assessor, and in particular annul the
of prices for the marketing year 1996/97. It is observed in                 measure of relegation in step ( three steps ), with
this regard that in those ' deficit' areas, that is in those                restitution of the portion of her salary withheld, and


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2000 in Case T-44/97: Piera Ghignone and Others v Council of the European Union (Officials — Remuneration — Posting to a third country — Adjustment of weightings — Retroactive effect — Recovery of overpayment)

text:
21.4.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 8 November 2000
                                                                                of 12 December 2000
in Case T-44/97: Piera Ghignone and Others v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case T-128/98: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Remuneration — Posting to a third country —
Adjustment of weightings — Retroactive effect — Recovery
                          of overpayment)
                                                                            (Competition — Air transport — Airport management —
                                                                            Applicable regulation — Regulation No 17 and Regulation
                          (2001/C 118/95)                                   (EEC) No 3975/87 — Abuse of dominant position —
                                                                                Discriminatory fees)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/96)
In Case T-44/97: Piera Ghignone, Helga Glassl, Colette Jemaa,
Enrica Massucco, Giovanni Di Maio, René Franquinet, Klaus-
Dietrich Jagstaidt, Michel Perillat, officials of the Council of the
European Union, residing in Geneva (Switzerland), Jacques                                       (Language of the case: French)
Brodin, an official of the Council of the European Union,
residing in Tannay (Switzerland), Servatius van Thiel, official
of the Council of the European Union, residing in Nyon
(Switzerland), Ettore Zamproni, official of the Council of the
European Union, residing in Bellevue (Switzerland), Monique                 In Case T-128/98: Aéroports de Paris, established in Paris
Weygandt, Léo Geboers, David Hollister, officials of the                    (France), represented by H. Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
Council of the European Union, residing in New York (United                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
States of America), represented initially by J.-N. Louis, T. Dema-          398 Route d’Esch, against Commission of the European
seure and A. Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, and then by Mr Louis              Communities (Agents: represented initially by J.F. Crespo
and Mr Demaseure, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Carrillo and G. Charrier and subsequently by L. Pignataro and
at Société de gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,                   B. Geneste) — application for annulment of Commission
against Council of the European Union (Agents: J.P. Jacqué and              Decision 98/513/EC of 11 June 1998 relating to a proceeding
T. Blanchet) — application for annulment of the applicants’                 under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/35.613 — Alpha Flight
salary slips for May and June 1996 — the Court of First                     Services/Aéroports de Paris) (OJ 1998 L 230, p. 10) —
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,               the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
J. Azizi and A. Potocki, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for              K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which                 González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
it:                                                                         ment on 12 December 2000, in which it:
1.    removes from the case-file the opinions of the legal service of       1.    Dismisses the application.
      the Council, produced by the applicants in annexes 5 and 10
      to the reply;
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
2.    dismisses the application;                                                  incurred by the Commission and by the intervener, Alfa Flight
                                                                                Services.
3.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case F-102/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/52

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-102/08)
   (2009/C 55/95)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to reject the applicant's request for, first, compensation for the damage suffered when the personal effects were dispatched from his official lodgings in Luanda and, second, the destruction of all the documents relating to the dispatched property in the defendant's possession and the restitution of that property to the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision rejecting the request of 1 September 2007 and, in so far as is necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint of 20 March 2008;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the note of 18 July 2008;

               —

               confirm that, on 30 April 2003 and 2 May 2003, members of the defendant's staff or its representatives entered the applicant's lodgings against his will, took photographs, drew up a list of the applicant's presumed personal effects, carried out an evaluation of each item on the list of personal effects, entered the applicant's motor vehicle, took possession of the applicant's personal effects and motor vehicle and evicted him from the lodgings and their appurtenances;

               —

               confirm and declare that such acts are unlawful;

               —

               order the defendant to draw up a list accurately identifying each individual item of the documentation that is relevant to the abovementioned facts and to notify the applicant in writing of that list;

               —

               order the defendant to arrange for the physical destruction of each individual item of the documentation and to notify the applicant of that destruction;

               —

               order the defendant to arrange for the applicant's personal effects to be restored to him;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 722 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just, by way of compensation for the damage arising from facts referred to above;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, with effect from the date of the request of 1 September 2007 until the date of actual payment of the sum of EUR 722 000, interest on that sum;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the damage arising from the failure to draw up the list of documentation and to notify the applicant of that list, with effect from tomorrow until the day on which the list is notified to the applicant, the sum of EUR 100 per day, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the damage arising from the failure physically to destroy the documentation, with effect from tomorrow until the day on which the documentation is physically destroyed, the sum of EUR 100 per day, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the damage arising from the failure to restore the applicant's personal effects to him, with effect from tomorrow until the day on which the effects are restored, the sum of EUR 100 per day, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-279/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Notification of the opposing party’s pleading before the Board of Appeal — Rules 50(1), 20(2) and 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rights of the defence)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri)
   (Case T-279/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Notification of the opposing party’s pleading before the Board of Appeal - Rules 50(1), 20(2) and 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 258/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonino Aiello (Vico Equense, Italy) (represented by: M. Coccia and L. Pardo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Cantoni ITC SpA and Antonino Aiello.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-49/96 P Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the European Communities (Official - Appeal clearly inadmissible)

text:
No C 40/6               ( EN ]                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       observance of the maximum limit of 'small numbers '
                           (Third Chamber )                                    referred to in that provision.
                         of 12 December 1 996                            (') O I No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
in Case C-10/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Belgian Conseil d'État): Ligue Royale Belge pour la
Protection des Oiseaux ASBL and Société d'Études
Ornithologiques AVES ASBL v. Région Wallone;
intervener: Fédération Royale Ornithologique Belge
                                 ASBL (')                                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
 (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of                                              (Fourth Chamber)
       wild birds — Prohibition of capture — Derogations)                                       of 12 December 1996
                              ( 97/C 40/ 11 )                            in Case C-49/96 P Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    (Official — Appeal clearly inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/12 )
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                           (Language of the case: French)
              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 In Case C-10/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177                          published in the European Court Reports)
 of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'État for a
 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                In Case C-49/96 P: Nicolaos Progoulis ( represented by
 court between Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection des                  Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis) —
 Oiseaux          ASBL,      along     with    Societe     d'Études       appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance
 Ornithologiques AVES ASBL, and Region Wallone;                           ( Fifth Chamber ) of 15 December 1995 in Case T-l 31 /95
 intervener : Federation Royale Ornithologique Beige ASBL                 Progoulis v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-907, seeking
 — on the interpretation ' of Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Council            to have that order set aside , the other party to the
 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1 979 on the conservation                proceedings being the Commission of the European
  of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979, p. 1 ) — the               Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira, assisted by
  Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                  Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ),
  Almeida , President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                          composed of J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), President of the
  ( Rapporteur ) and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fennelly,               Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H. Ragnemalm, Judges ;
  Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein , Deputy Registrar, for               C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made
  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 ,               an order on 12 December 1996 , in which it :
  the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                           1 . dismisses the appeal as clearly inadmissible;
   1 . Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
        conservation of wild birds , and in particular Article 9           2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
        ( 1 ) (c) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a
        Member State may not, on a decreasing basis and for                (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .
        a limited period, authorize the capture of certain
        protected species in order to enable bird fanciers to
        stock their aviaries, where breeding and reproduction
        of those species in captivity arc possible but are not
        yet practicable on a large scale by reason of the fact
        that many fanciers would be compelled to alter their                Appeal brought on 17 September 1996 by Giorgio
        installations and change their habits.                              Bernardi against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
                                                                            by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
    2.   National authorities are authorized under Directive
                                                                            the European Communities in Case T-146/95 between
                                                                                European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi
         79/409/EEC, and in particular under Article 9 (1 ) (c)
         thereof, to permit the capture of protected species with                                   ( Case C-303 /96 P )
         a view to obviating, in bird breeding for recreational                                           ( 97/C 40/ 13 )
         purposes, the problems of consanguinity which would
         result from too many endogenous crossings, on
         condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, it         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
         being understood that the number of specimens which                 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
         may be captured must be fixed at the level of what                  European Communities in Case T-146/95 between
         proves to be objectively necessary to provide a                     European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi was brought
         solution for those problems, subject always to                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2001 in Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe Aromatiche Snc (Iposea) v Commission of the European Communities (Common Customs Tariff — Regulation amending the combined nomenclature — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 173/33
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        of 30 January 2001                                 —     annul the express decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                15 December 2000, in so far as that decision rejects the
in Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe                       applicant’s request of 23 May 2000 for the grant of
Aromatiche Snc (Iposea) v Commission of the European                             an invalidity pension in accordance with the second
                          Communities (1)                                        paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                                officials;
(Common Customs Tariff — Regulation amending the
                                                                           —     order the grant of an invalidity pension calculated in
combined nomenclature — Action for annulment — Inad-
                                                                                accordance with the second paragraph of Article 78 of
                             missibility)
                                                                                the Staff Regulations of officials;
                          (2001/C 173/59)                                  —     alternatively, order, by interim judgment, the setting-up
                                                                                of an invalidity committee as provided for in Article 53
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations of officials, with the task of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                examining whether the applicant is suffering from total
                                                                                permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 78 of
In Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe                       the Staff Regulations of officials;
Aromatiche Snc (Iposea), established at Cerignola (Italy),
represented by A. Guarino, of the Rome Bar, and A. Lorang,                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 2 Rue des Dahlias, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Schie-
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
ferer and M. Moretto) — application for annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2626/1999 of 13 December
1999 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                          The applicant entered the service of the Communities in
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on               Luxembourg in 1963. Upon being transferred to the Com-
the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1999 L 321, p. 3) — the                      mission in Brussels in 1970, he was assigned to work in the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                     Berlaymont building. According to the applicant, the working
A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;             conditions in the workshops at first basement level and
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 January 2001, the                  mezzanine level in that building were insalubrious and charac-
operative part of which is as follows:                                     terised by a dusty atmosphere, caused by asbestos dust
                                                                           discovered at a later date.
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                           In October 1981 the applicant decided to submit his resig-
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                           nation. Following his resignation, the applicant’s physical state
                                                                           was such that he could not perform any occupational activities
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                 whatsoever.
                                                                           In November 1999 the applicant, who had previously brought
                                                                           proceedings seeking official recognition of his occupational
                                                                           disease and compensation for the damage which he alleges to
                                                                           have suffered, submitted a request under Article 90 of the Staff
                                                                           Regulations seeking the grant of an invalidity pension pursuant
Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone                          to Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. The Commission refused
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       that request, taking the view that it was not the applicant’s
                                                                           invalidity which had caused him to cease working for the
                           (Case T-59/01)                                  Communities.
                          (2001/C 173/60)                                  The applicant claims that the Commission committed an abuse
                                                                           of process when adopting a decision which should have been
                                                                           taken by an invalidity committee in accordance with the Staff
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Regulations, and pleads that the Commission was under a duty
                                                                           to afford assistance and that he was entitled to the benefit of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  working conditions which respect the health, safety and dignity
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 of the employee, as well as the right to proper administration.
European Communities on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone,
residing at Piétrain (Belgium), represented by Juan Ramon
Iturriagagoitia Bassas, avocat.


title: Case C-410/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2017 — A

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2017 — A
   (Case C-410/17)
   (2017/C 300/26)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that demolition services carried out by a company whose business includes the supply of demolition services, is one single transaction where, under the terms of the contract between the it and the client, the demolition company is required to remove the demolition waste and where the demolition company may, if the demolition waste contains metal scrap, sell it to companies which buy recyclable scrap metal?
               Or, taking into account Article 2(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 14 (1) of the Directive 2006/112/EC, is such a contract for demolition services to be interpreted as comprising two transactions: first, a supply of services by the demolition company to the client of demolition services and, second, the purchase of the metal scrap metal from the client for resale by the demolition company?
               In the present case is it important when fixing the price for the demolition services that the demolition company took into account, as a factor moderating the price, that it is also possible to generate revenues by making use of demolition waste?
               In the present case, is it important that the quantity and value of the recoverable demolition waste have not been agreed upon in the demolition contract, or that it has not been agreed that that information will be notified later to the client for which the demolition work is carried out, or the fact that the quantity and the value of the demolition waste are known only when the demolition company sells it?

               2.

               Is Article 2(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 14(1) of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC, in a situation in which a company whose business is the supply of demolition services concludes a contract with the owner of an object to be demolished that the demolition company will buy the object to be demolished and undertakes, subject to a contractual penalty, to demolish and remove the object within a period specified in the contract, to be interpreted as meaning that in such a situation there is a single transaction which includes the sale of objects by the owner of the object to be demolished the demolition company?
               Or, having regard to Article 2(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 24(1) of the Directive 2006/112/EC, is a contract of this kind to be interpreted as consisting of two transactions, namely the sale of goods by the owner of the object to be demolished to the demolition company and he demolition services supplied by the demolition company to the seller of the goods?
               In this case what importance is to be attached to the fact that the demolition company, when fixing the price in its purchase offer for the goods, takes into account, as a factor in reducing the price, the costs to be incurred by the dismantling and removal of the goods?
               Is it important that the seller of the goods is aware that the costs incurred by the demolition company for dismantling and transporting the items are taken into account as a factor reducing the price of those goods, in view of the fact that no agreement on these costs and the estimated or actual amount of these costs should at no time be known to the seller of the goods?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case F-125/14: Action brought on 27th October 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/60

         Action brought on 27th October 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-125/14)
   (2015/C 007/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant and the payment of damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the salary and allowances she should have earned until the end of the 2009-2014 legislature;

               —

               order the defendant to award the applicant an amount of 50  000 €, ex aequo et bono, and subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for the damage resulting from the loss of the chance to securing a job at the European Parliament after the 2009-2014 legislature;

               —

               order the defendant to award the applicant an amount of 15  000 €, ex aequo et bono, and subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-176/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission
   (Case T-176/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))
   2014/C 329/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerorgsmarienhütte GmbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The judgment in Case T-176/14 R Gerorgsmarienhütte v Commission is set aside

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Action brought on 29 August 1997 by Kaufhof Warenhaus AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-245/97)

text:
C 357/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22 . 11 . 97
Action brought on 29 August 1997 by Kaufhof                           imposed in the regulation did not enter into force until
Warenhaus AG against the Commission of the European                    14 June 1997.
                            Communities
                         ( Case T-245/97)                             The applicant submits that by virtue of the Community
                                                                      case-law on the calculation of time-limits the final date for
                           ( 97/C 357/57                              the imposition of the anti-dumping duties in question was
                                                                       13 June 1997. The regulation must be regarded as
                                                                      unlawful on account of failure to observe the time-limit
                 (Language of the case: English)                      prescribd by Article 7 ( 1 ) of the basic regulation for the
                                                                      imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties.
An action against the Commission of the European                      (') OJ L 156, 13 . 6 . 1997, p. 11 .
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     ( 2 ) According to Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation No 384/96
Instance of the European Communities on 29 August                           of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
 1997 by Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, represented by Ursula                        from countries not members of the European Communities
Schliessner, Rechtsanwalt, Diisseldorf, instructed by James                 ( OJ L 56 , 6 . 3 . 1997, p. 1 ), 'The provisional duties shall be
Searles of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Brussels, with                     imposed no earlier than 60 days from the initiation of the
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                       proceedings but not later than nine months from the initiation
Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                 of the proceedings .'
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to                 Action brought on 12 September 1997 by T. Port GmbH
     Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1069/97 and,                               & Co. against the Commission of the European
     consequently, the regulation itself, illegal and void,                                           Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-251/97)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant                                             ( 97/C 357/58 )
     in the present proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
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
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 12 September
The applicant, a major German importer and retailer of                1997 by T. Port GmbH & Co., Hamburg, represented by
certain bed linen from various third countries, challenges            Gert Meier, Cologne, with an address for service in
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1069/97 of 12 June                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on                      Marie-Adelaide .
imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt,
India and Pakistan (').
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
The single ground of illegality put forward is that,                  — annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty
contrary to the nine-month time-limit prescribed by the                       and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission
basic anti-dumping regulation for the imposition of                           of 9 July 1997 refusing to adopt transitional measures
provisional anti-dumping duties, the contested regulation                     in favour of T. Port under the common organization of
by its own terms enters into force after the expiry of that                   the market in bananas,
period (2 ).
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
The applicant states that, acting on a complaint lodged
with the European Commission on 30 July 1996 by the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of
the European Communities ( Eurocotton ), the defendant                The applicant, an undertaking which trades in bananas,
initiated the anti-dumping investigation relating to the              had applied on 16 December 1996 for the allocation of
present case by a notice published in the Official Journal            additional import licences for third country bananas under
of the European Communities on 13 September 1996 .                    the rules on tariff quotas, pursuant to Article 30 of
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the contested regulation provides that 'this       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ('). Following the
Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its            failure to make a decision on that application, the
publication in the Official Journal of the European                   applicant brought an action on 27 February 1997 ( Case
Communities'. The regulation was published in OJ L 156,               T-39/97) for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the
13 . 6 . 1997. This means that, according to the terms of             Commission had infringed Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93
the Commission's own provision, the anti-dumping duties               by not granting the import licences applied for.


title: Case C-686/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić
   (Case C-686/15)
   (2016/C 111/07)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o.

      Defendant: Željka Klafurić

      Question referred

   How is water supplied, which is invoiced by apartment in a residential building or by individual house, calculated under EU law? Do EU citizens pay the invoices concerning their water consumption by paying only for the consumption actually shown on the meter or do they pay other fees or charges in addition?


title: Case F-91/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Public service — Officials — Reasonable time-limits for bringing a claim for damages — Out of time)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/72

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-91/09) (1)

      (Public service - Officials - Reasonable time-limits for bringing a claim for damages - Out of time)
      (2010/C 288/135)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Rejection by the Commission of the applicant’s request for compensation for damage purportedly suffered as a result of a letter by which the Commission asked a doctor to carry out a medical examination in order to determine whether the applicant was genuinely unfit for work.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Mr Marcuccio is to pay the costs in their entirety.

         (1)  OJ C 11 of 16.1.2010, p. 41.


title: Case T-80/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark BUILT TO RESIST — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/56

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)
   (Case T-80/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark BUILT TO RESIST - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JanSport Apparel Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, C. Casalonga and K. Dimidjian-Lecompte, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen initially, and subsequently by O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 12 January 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1090/2006-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BUILT TO RESIST as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JanSport Apparel Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-155/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Zanjani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Adjustment of the temporal effects of annulment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Zanjani v Council
   (Case T-155/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Adjustment of the temporal effects of annulment))
   2014/C 282/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Babak Zanjani (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), in that the applicant was listed in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), in that the applicant was listed in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) and, secondly, a declaration of the inapplicability of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 in so far as Article 19(1)(b) and (c) of Decision 2010/413 is applied to him.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Mr Babak Zanjani in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Mr Babak Zanjani in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3)

               Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 to be maintained as regards Mr Babak Zanjani until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

               4)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Babak Zanjani.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.