title: Case T-330/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — Hut.com v OHIM — Intersport France (THE HUT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark THE HUT — Earlier national word mark LA HUTTE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Hut.com v OHIM — Intersport France (THE HUT)
   (Case T-330/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark THE HUT - Earlier national word mark LA HUTTE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 253/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Hut.com Ltd (Northwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Intersport France (Longjumeau, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2012 (Case R 814/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersport France and The Hut.com Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders The Hut.com Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-505/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/63

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission
   (Case T-505/13)
   2013/C 344/117
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Sona (Curaçao, formerly Netherlands Antilles) and Nao NV (Curaçao) (represented by: R. Martens, K. Beirnaert and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2013, of which the applicants had knowledge only at the end of July 2013, not to designate Stichting SONA as delegated entity for the implementation tasks of the single programming document for the former Netherlands Antilles under the 10th European Development Fund;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission to grant the implementation tasks for this programming document to International Management Group (IMG).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the right to protection of personal data and the secrecy or confidentiality of investigations, as protected by Articles 8 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and by Article 16 TFEU.
               The applicants allege that the defendant sent letters to the Netherlands Government about a pending investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in respect of which no (final) report has yet been produced, but which expressly name the applicants and which indicate, or at least very strongly suggest, that the applicants are involved in irregularities in the context of the management of the 9th European Development Fund project, and accordingly, on the basis of that allegation, decided that the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund for the projects on the former Netherlands Antilles could not be assigned to the applicants. At the same time, the applicants were never designated by OLAF as a ‘person concerned’, so they have never been aware that they had to defend themselves as a ‘person concerned’, thus making it impossible for them to defend themselves since, up to now, they have still not heard what the concrete allegations, allegedly existing against them, and against which they must defend themselves, are.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the protection legitimate expectations by creating a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicants that they would be responsible for the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund as regards the former Netherlands Antilles.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality because of the Commission’s exclusion of the applicants solely due to the existence of ‘preliminary findings’ in an OLAF investigation which mention ‘potential problems’.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to be heard.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of transparency as set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008, (1) and the duty to give reasons.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2304/2002 (2) and of the single programming document for the 10th European Development Fund.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 since the conditions for the implementation of the financing, in the context of assigning joint management to IMG have not been fulfilled. The second contested decision is therefore unlawful as well.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 of 18 February 2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund (OJ 2008 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2304/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing Council Decision 2001/822/EC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (Overseas Association Decision) (OJ 2002 L 348, p. 82).


title: Case T-85/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Staff reporting — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure — Lawfulness of the staff reporting procedure)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-85/04) (1)

   (Staff Cases - Officials - Staff reporting - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure - Lawfulness of the staff reporting procedure)
   (2008/C 64/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented initially by J. Mosar, then by F. Gengler and P. Georgen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer and A. Manville, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure in so far as it concerns the applicant and of the decision which adopted his career development report for that procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision adopting the career development report of Mr Guido Strack for the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-336/05: Action brought on  5 September 2005  — De Soeten v Council

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/27

         Action brought on 5 September 2005 — De Soeten v Council
   (Case T-336/05)
   (2005/C 296/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Henders De Soeten (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request for early retirement without any reduction in her pension rights;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a former official of the Council, who has been in retirement since 1 July 2004. She submitted an application for entitlement to the measure referred to in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which enables the Appointing Authority, in the interests of the service and on the basis of objective criteria and transparent procedures introduced by means of general implementing provisions, not to apply the reduction in pension provided for in Article 9(1)(b) to officials leaving the service before the age of 63.
   By her action, the applicant contests the decision refusing to grant her that benefit. She submits that one of the candidates who qualified for that measure was assigned to the same department. The applicant therefore takes the view that the requirements of the service were the same in both cases and asserts that the above mentioned article and the general implementing provisions adopted by the Council have been infringed, since both her length of service and her merits were greater than those of the other candidate.
   In addition, the applicant alleges that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it held that the assessment of the criterion of the requirements of the service meant that regard should be had to the individual qualities of officials.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2002 in Case T-123/00: Dr. Karl Thomae GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 — Community marketing authorisation — Regulation (EC) No 542/95 — Variation of the terms of the authorisation — Name and package layout of the medicinal product)

text:
C 44/22                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and K.-D. Borchardt), supported by
                                                                             Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: initially W.-D. Plessing
                       of 5 December 2002                                    and T. Jürgensen, and, subsequently, Plessing and M. Lumma):
                                                                             Application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             of 22 December 1999 relating to proposed State Aid No 506/
in Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the
                                                                             99, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             Composition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                             J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christen-
(Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court                     sen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                 of First Instance — Dismissal)                              5 December 2002, in which it:
                          (2003/C 44/38)
                                                                             1.     Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             2.     Reserves costs.
In Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer, formerly a temporary                      (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
agent of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Hoeilaart, Belgium, represented by G. van der Wal,
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
G. Valsesia and C. Van der Hauwaert, subsequently F. Clotuche-
Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart) — application for annulment
of the Commission’s decision of 24 January 2000 terminating
the applicant’s contract of employment as temporary agent —                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, and V.Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                                    of 10 December 2002
gave a judgment on 5 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                             in Case T-123/00: Dr. Karl Thomae GmbH v Commission
1.     Dismissed the application;                                                            of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                             (Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2309/93 — Community marketing authorisation —
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                  Regulation (EC) No 542/95 — Variation of the terms of the
                                                                             authorisation — Name and package layout of the medicinal
                                                                                product)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/40)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                       of 5 December 2002
in Case T-114/00: Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigen-                       In Case T-123/00, Dr Karl Thomae GmbH, established in
   tum eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)                       Biberach an der Riß (Germany), represented by D. Waelbroeck
                                                                             and D. Brinckman, Lawyers, with an address for service in
(State aid — Scheme for the acquisition of agricultural and                  Luxembourg, supported by European Federation of Pharma-
forestry land in the former German Democratic Republic —                     ceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), established in
Failure to initiate the formal review procedure provided for                 Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Perkins, Solicitor, and
in Article 88(2) EC — System of aid — Action for annulment                   M. Van Kerckhove, Lawyer, with an address for service in
                — Association — Admissibility)                               Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk), supported by
                          (2003/C 44/39)                                     Council of the European Union (Agents: M.-C. Giorgi and
                                                                             G. Houttuin): Application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                             1 March 2000 of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             Medicinal Products, rejecting an application for variation of
                                                                             certain terms of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal
                                                                             product, ‘Daquiran’, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
In Case T-114/00, Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum                     composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
eV, established in Borken (Germany), represented by M. Pech-                 P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
stein, professor, v Commission of the European Communities                   has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/23
1.     Annuls the decision of 1 March 2000 of the European                  3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
       Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, rejecting an
       application for variation of certain terms of the marketing
       authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Daquiran’;                  (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs incurred by the applicant and the EFPIA, intervener;
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
                                                                            in Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement
                                                                            of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
                       of 12 December 2002                                  equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                                                                                Actions for damages)
in Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)                                                        (2003/C 44/42)
(Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement                                     (Language of the case: French)
of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                        Actions for damages)
                                                                            In Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-
                            (2003/C 44/41)                                  mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                     (Language of the case: French)                         mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-
                                                                            Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the
                                                                            post of Head of Unit 2 ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
In Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-                  transport’ within Directorate F ‘Consumer goods and capital
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                  goods industries’ within the Directorate-General for Compe-
represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,                  tition (COM/070/99) and of its decision to appoint a different
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                     applicant to the post and an application for damages — the
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                   Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeg-
Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of                    er, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi, Judges; J. Palacio
the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to                   González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
the post of Head of Unit 1 ‘Post and telecommunications,                    judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
information society coordination’ within Directorate C ‘Infor-
mation, communication and multimedia’ within the Director-                  1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
ate-General for Competition (COM/069/99) and of its decision
to appoint a different applicant to the post and an application
for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the               3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;


title: Case C-417/14 RX: Decision of the Court of Justice (Review Chamber) of 9 September 2014 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeals Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2014 in Case T-401/11 P Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v European Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/21

      Decision of the Court of Justice (Review Chamber) of 9 September 2014 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeals Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2014 in Case T-401/11 P Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v European Commission
      (Case C-417/14 RX)
      (2014/C 395/26)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

         Applicant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (represented by: Fabrizio di Gianni, Renato Antonini, Gabriele Coppo and Aldo Scalini, avvocati)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Questions to be reviewed

      The review shall concern the question whether the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission (T-401/11 P, EU:T:2014:625) affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that it had jurisdiction to rule, as the court of first instance, on an action to establish non-contractual liability of the European Union

                  —

                  alleging failure of an institution in its duty to ensure the protection of its officials,

                  —

                  brought by third parties, in their capacity as heirs and successors of a deceased official and as a family member of such an official, and

                  —

                  seeking compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the deceased official himself and the material and non-material harm suffered by those third parties.

            The persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the parties to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union are invited to lodge their written observations on those questions at the Court of Justice of the European Union within one month of service of the above decision.


title: Case T-725/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/32

         Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT
   (Case T-725/16)
   (2016/C 462/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision refusing to grant her application to have communicated to her the decision to appoint Ms [X] to the Spanish translation team announced in October 2015 and, in so far as is necessary, the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint against that refusal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
   She considers that the announcement of a person’s ‘arrival’ in a service in no way fulfils the obligation to publish appointment decisions laid down in Article 25 and, in the absence of proper publication, each member of staff has the right to require that the appointment decision at issue be communicated. That right was, therefore, infringed in the present case by the Appointing Authority of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) in adopting the contested decision, namely, the decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to communicate to the applicant the decision in question.
   The applicant also submits that the act of relying on Regulation No 45/2001, relating to the protection of personal data, against that right, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is ineffective, because even if an appointment decision fell within the scope of the data protected by that regulation, Article 25 would have to be considered a lex specialis, conferring a right of access on third parties.


title: Case T-419/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by ARGEV Verpackungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH and Altstoff Recycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 59/27
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by ARGEV Ver-                          ments would fulfil the requirements of the block exemption
packungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH and Altstoff                         regulation. The imposition of conditions which exceed the
Recycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-                     provisions of the block exemption is impermissible.
            mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-419/03)                                  Furthermore, the applicants submit that the conditions pro-
                                                                          vided for cannot be fulfilled and are unreasonable. Article 3(b)
                                                                          of the decision requires ARGEV and/or its disposal partner to
                          (2004/C 59/43)                                  have continuing information concerning the total amount of
                                                                          packaging licensed through systems in the domestic sector.
                   (Language of the case: German)                         That information is not, however, available. In addition, market
                                                                          shares can only be determined retrospectively. The distribution
                                                                          key laid down by the Commission for the goods collected is
                                                                          therefore impracticable. Moreover, Article 3(b) would, on the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 basis of realistic assumptions, result in ARGEV failing to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                achieve the collection and recycling quota laid down by the
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by ARGEV                         authorities. In the worst case, that would lead to the withdrawal
Verpackungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH and Altstoff                      of approval. The condition is therefore unreasonable, in
Recycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft, Vienna (Austria), rep-              particular because there were less severe means of achieving
resented by Dr Hanno Wollmann, lawyer.                                    the objective sought by the Commission. The proposals made
                                                                          by ARGEV in that regard were left out of account by the
                                                                          Commission in the decision, without any reasons being given.
The applicant claims that the Court should
—     annul Article 2 and Article 3 of the Commission Decision            Finally, the applicants submit that there is a contradiction
      of 16 October 2003 in a proceeding under Article 81 EC              between the operative part and the statement of reasons of the
      and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP D3/                  decision in material respects. The statement of reasons contains
      35.470 — ARA, COMP D3/35.743 — ARGEV, ARO);                         material restrictions of the conditions that are not reproduced
                                                                          in the operative part of the decision.
—     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                                                                              1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories
                                                                              of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
                                                                              p. 21).
Pleas in law and main arguments
In 1994 the applicants notified several agreements and request-
ed negative clearance or, in the alternative, an exemption
decision. By the contested decision, the Commission approved,
subject to conditions, the bundle of contracts of ARA, the
countrywide Austrian system for the collection and recycling
of packaging waste.                                                       Action brought on 22 December 2003 by European New
                                                                          Car Assessment Programme (‘Euro NCAP’) against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants object to Articles 2 and 3 of the decision
and claim that the restriction of competition found by the
Commission does not exist. The Commission bases Article 2                                          (Case T-424/03)
of the decision on the fact that ARGEV has given exclusive
contracts in the relevant collecting region to those disposal
                                                                                (2004/C 59/44)
undertakings with which it has concluded collection and
sorting agreements (‘services contracts’). That is incorrect. The
services contracts do not contain either a commitment to                                      (Language of the case: English)
exclusivity which binds ARGEV or on which it can rely. For
that reason, the Commission ought to have given the services
contracts the negative clearance primarily applied for instead
of an exemption.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Moreover, the applicants claim that the services contract                 European Communities on 22 December 2003 by European
satisfies the requirements of the block exemption in Regulation           New Car Assessment Programme (‘Euro NCAP’), Brussels,
No 2790/1999 (1). Even if the services contracts of ARGEV                 Belguim, represented by Mr S. Kinsella and Mr K. Daly,
contained an obligation of exclusivity (quod non) the agree-              Solicitors.


title: Case C-121/13: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding — Germany) — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/18

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding — Germany) — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.
   (Case C-121/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/28
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Case T-350/16: Action brought on 1 July 2016 — Kinepolis Group v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/39

         Action brought on 1 July 2016 — Kinepolis Group v Commission
   (Case T-350/16)
   (2016/C 296/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kinepolis Group (Brussel, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.


title: Case C-455/14 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10: H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina ( ‘EUPM’ )

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/10

         Appeal brought on 29 September 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10: H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (‘EUPM’)
   (Case C-455/14 P)
   (2014/C 448/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10 H v. Council of the European Union, European Commission and ‘EUPM’, insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of the personnel of the EUPM, by which the Applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if necessary, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission, referred to in Article 6 of the Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009, on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and second, for damages;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant is putting forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the right of defence

               —

               Infringement of Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure

               —

               Error in law

               —

               Infringement of European Law

      (1)  OJ L 322, p. 22


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-169/95)

text:
 12 . 8 . 95                        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/7
         which conflict with those of Community law in cases                           Coordination, and by Gloria Calvo Diaz, Abogado del
         where , if direct effect were given to the latter, the                        Estado, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
         position of the individual would be impaired ?                                Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E.
                                                                                Servais .
 ( l ) ' 8 . In the court's opinion, there is reason to doubt whether the
              provisions mentioned at point 7 ( 1 ) comply with the                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
              Community Directives :
              ( a ) by virtue of the rules complained of, the system
                     introduced by Legislative Decree No 1 33/ 1 992 ( express ,       — uphold the application and annul the contested decision,
                     prior and conditional authorization for a fixed term )                and
                     does not apply to the majority of existing plants;
              ( b ) all the Community Directives which Legislative Decree
                     No 133/1992 purports to implement ( and in respect of             — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
                     which the time limit for implementation has long since
                     elapsed ) appear instead to require — clearly and
                     indisputably — express, prior and conditional                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     authorization for a fixed term in respect of all discharges
                     falling within their purview. In that connection ,
                     consideration should be given to the following                    — Infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law relating
                     provisions by way of example :                                       to its application : infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the
                     ( bl ) Article 1 ( 2 ) ( d ) of Directive 76/464/EEC , which         EC Treaty: the fact that an aid cannot be considered
                            defines the concept of 'discharge ' without drawing           automatically to be compatible as regional aid because it
                            any distinction between new and existing                      is ad hoc and does not form part of a programme of
                            discharges ; Article 3 of that Directive, which               regional aid does not preclude its being classified as
                            provides that 'all discharges . . . which are liable to       compatible regional aid . This case concerns aid granted
                            contain ' one of the substances covered by the                by the Spanish public authorities to an undertaking
                            Directive ( and consequently by Legislative Decree
                            No 133/1992 ) are subject to express , prior and              which intends to locate in a Spanish region classified as a
                            conditional authorization for a fixed term;                   less-favoured area . It is aid for basic investment whose
                     ( b2 ) Article 3 of Directive 83/51 3/EEC , concerning               overall intensity is well below the limit laid down in the
                            cadmium discharges, which provides that all                   Commission's Decision of 28 May 1987 regarding the
                            discharges containing cadmium are subject to                  general regional aid scheme in Spain for the province of
                            express, prior and conditional authorization for a            Teruel ('). Although there was no general regional aid
                            fixed term, with no distinction being drawn                   scheme for the Autonomous Community of Aragon duly
                            between existing discharges and new discharges                authorized by the Commission, the aid granted to Piezas
                            ( the latter being distinguished only for the separate        y Rodajes SA ( PYRSA ) observed the conditions laid
                            purpose referred to in Article 4 ( 1 )).'
(*) '7. It is the court's view that the following provisions of                           down in Decree 80/1988 of the Diputacion General de
              Legislative Decree No 133/1992 merit consideration :                        Aragon ( Government of the Autonomous Community
             — Article 7(1 ) with respect only to the words 'containing                   of Aragon ) on economic aid to small and medium-sized
                    the dangerous substances for which emission thresholds                enterprises in the Autonomous Community of Aragon
                    are laid down in Annex B ',                                           which the Commission adopted on 29 January 1 992 ( 2 ).
             — Article 7 ( 7 ).                                                           Therefore to draw the automatic conclusion that it is
                    The provisions concerned are precisely those which, as                incompatible with the Treaty would entail an
                    explained above at point 5 , confine the current                      irreconcilable contradiction . On the contrary, the aid
                    applicability of Legislative Decree No 133/1992 to a                  should be considered to meet all the conditions in order
                    very small proportion of the existing plants .'
( 2 ) OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p. 23 .
                                                                                to be considered compatible, particularly since the
(-') OJ No L 291 , 24 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .                                               provisions underlying it met the criteria which enabled it
                                                                                to be authorized subsequently as a general regional aid
                                                                                scheme .
                                                                                — Error in the assessment of facts : the contested decision
                                                                                relies on mere 'hypotheses ' extrapolated from
                                                                                information which not only is unrepresentative but also
                                                                                refers to years subsequent to those which were taken
                                                                                into account when granting the aid ( 1990 et seq., instead
Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Kingdom of Spain against                                 of 1988 and 1989 ), even though the Commission itself
            the Commission of the European Communities                                    pointed out the strong increase in demand within the
                                     ( Case C-169/95 )                                    Community in the sector concerned in the years which
                                       ( 95/C 208/ 15 )                                   were relevant to the granting of aid .
                                                                                — In the alternative, the Kingdom of Spain considers that
An action against the Commission of the European                                          there are exceptional circumstances which could justify
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                                the recipient undertaking's objection to repaying the aid .
European Communities on 1 June 1995 by the Kingdom of                                     The recipient undertaking acted on the basis that it
Spain, represented by Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez,                                      considered the aid to be compatible regional aid to be
Director General for Community Legal and Institutional                                    notified a posteriori to the Commission, in accordance
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                               12 . 8 . 95
      with the rules applying to such aid . Furthermore, by             20 December 1963 to claim that he has preserved his
      reason of the first decision, NN 12/91 , PYRSA was in             entitlement to unemployment benefits but where he
      receipt of aid which was considered compatible by the             demonstrates that, on the date of his application, he satisfied
      Commission when it reviewed it a posteriori. The action           the conditions regarding qualifying periods for acquisition
      for annulment brought in Case C- 198/91 Cook v.                   of entitlement to those benefits ?
      Commission had no suspensory effect. In these
      circumstances, it is perfectly logical that the recipient
                                                                        (') OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 . English Special Edition , 1971(11 ),
      undertaking should have based its legitimate                           p . 416 .
      expectations on the compatibility of that aid, bearing in
      mind , moreover, that the Court, in its judgment in Cook,
      did not even state directly that the aid was incompatible
      but rather that it was illegal by reason of the failure to
      initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of
      the Treaty . Thus, it was not until March 1994 that
      PYRSA found itself in receipt of aid which the
      Commission itself had initially declared compatible and           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
      which was now declared incompatible .                             Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 1 1 April
                                                                        1995 in the case of Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin, intervener:
                                                                             Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— In any event, interest should be calculated solely from
      the date of the Commission's decision declaring the aid                                      ( Case C-171/95 )
      previously granted to PYRSA incompatible, that is, from                                        ( 95/C 208/17 )
      14 March 1995 .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(M OJ No C 251 , 27. 9 . 1988 , p . 4 .                                 European Communities by an order of the
( 2 ) OJ No C 326 , 11 . 11 . 1992 , p . 5 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht,                 Erster      Senat        ( Federal
                                                                        Administrative Court, First Senate ) of 11 April 1995 ,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1995 ,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recep Tetik
                                                                        v. Land Berlin, intervener : Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundes
                                                                        verwaltungsgericht, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . is a Turkish seaman, who was employed from 1980 to
                                                                              1988 on maritime vessels of a Member State, a member
                                                                              of the legitimate labour force of that Member State and
                                                                              legally employed there within the meaning of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                           Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC/Turkey
Cassation, Belgium (Third Chamber), by judgment of that                       Association Council on the development of the
court of 15 May 1995 in the case of Office National de                        Association where his employment relationship was
                   l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro                               governed by national law and he paid income tax and
                         ( Case C-l 70/95 )                                   was affiliated to the social security system in that
                                                                              Member State, but the work permit issued to him was
                           ( 95/C 208/16 )
                                                                              limited to working in shipping and did not authorize
                                                                              him to take up residence on shore ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Is it relevant in that connection that under German law
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             that activity is not subject to the requirement of a work
 Cassation ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium ( Third Chamber )                  permit and that, to some extent, special statutory
 of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                    arrangements apply to seamen from the point of view of
 on 6 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office              employment law and social security law ?
 National de l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro on the following
 question:
                                                                         2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
 Must Article 69 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of                     does a Turkish seaman lose his right to be granted a
 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes                   residence permit if he terminates his employment
 to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         relationship voluntarily, and not, for example, on health
 members of their families moving within the                                  grounds , and 11 days later, after the expiry of his
 Community ( ] ), in the version contained in Regulation                      residence permit, applies for a residence permit for work
 ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , be construed in the sense               on shore and after the refusal to grant the permit is
 that the requirement that an unemployed person should                         unemployed ?
 have been employed for at least three months since his
 return to Belgium is applicable where the unemployed
 person does not rely on Article 123 of the Royal Decree of


title: Case T-43/08: Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/36

         Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission
   (Case T-43/08)
   (2008/C 92/72)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Shetland Islands Council (represented by: E. Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor and R. Thompson QC)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

               —

               the costs of this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a public authority that made payments to the fisheries sector under the scope of two general aid measures, named ‘Aid to Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid to the Fish Farming Industry’ consisting of different types of aid schemes. The Commission found that the aid which the United Kingdom implemented on the basis of the ‘Fish Factory Improvement Scheme’ was incompatible with the common market, in so far as it concerned the amount of GBP 92 007, granted on 13 August 1997, 7 January 1999, 25 February 1999, 10 December 1999, 19 January 2001 and 15 December 2004.
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C 38/2006 (ex NN 93/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning the ‘Fish Factory Improvement Scheme’ implemented in the United Kingdom. In particular, the applicant seeks annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the contested decision on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that recovery of payments would be compatible with:

               (1)

               Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1); and

               (2)

               the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment.

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-275/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätt, Sundsvall): Anne Kuusijärvi v Riksförsäkringsverket (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Personal scope - Parental benefit - Maintenance of entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 258/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 11 June 1998
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
in    Case C-206/96: Commission of the European
       Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                   in Case C-275/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Kammarrätt, Sundsvall): Anne Kuusijärvi v
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                 Riksförsäkringsverket (1)
        Non-transposition of Directive 76/464/EEC)
                                                                     (Social security Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð
                         (98/C 258/08)                               Personal scope Ð Parental benefit Ð Maintenance of
                                                                     entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to
                                                                                another Member State)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (98/C 258/09)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-206/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Jean-
Francis Pasquier) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Nicolas Schmit) Ð application for a declaration that, by
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
failing to adopt programmes for the reduction of pollution
including quality objectives for water, alternatively, by
failing to communicate to the Commission summaries of
those programmes and the results of their implementation,
contrary to Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of             In Case C-275/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous                  of the EC Treaty from the Kammarrätt (Administrative
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the            Court of Appeal), Sundsvall, Sweden, for a preliminary
Community (OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23), the Grand                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that Court
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations             between Anne Kuusijärvi and Riksförsäkringsverket Ð on
under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     the interpretation of a number of provisions of Council
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch              application of social security schemes to employed
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;                  persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                families moving within the Community, and of Council
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in                  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying
which it:                                                            down the procedure for implementing Regulation
                                                                     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230
                                                                     of 22.8.1983, p. 6), and further amended by Council
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt programmes to
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991 (OJ L 206
     reduce pollution in respect of 99 substances within
                                                                     of 29.7.1991, p. 2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
     List I in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC
                                                                     composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
     of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
                                                                     R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
     dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
                                                                     and G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.
     environment of the Community which require,
                                                                     von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
     according to the first indent in List II, to be treated
                                                                     given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
     as substances in the latter list, the Grand Duchy of
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     the said Directive;
                                                                     1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                         employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                                                                         members of their families moving within the
                                                                         Community, as amended and updated by Council
3. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, applies
     costs.
                                                                         to a person who, on the entry into force of that
                                                                         regulation in a Member State, was residing in that
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.                                               State as an unemployed person, having previously
                                                                         been in employment there, and who, by reason of that
                                                                         employment, was receiving unemployment benefit
                                                                         under the social security scheme of that Member State.
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
2. Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, as inserted          P. LeÂger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
    by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June              a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
    1991, does not preclude the legislation of a Member
    State from making the right of a person who has
    ceased all occupational activity in its territory to
    remain subject to its legislation dependent on his             On a proper construction of Article 10a of Council
    continued residence there.                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                   application of social security schemes to employed
                                                                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                   families moving within the Community, as amended and
3. Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude the                     updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
    legislation of a Member State from providing that a            2 June 1983, as subsequently amended by Council
    person who has ceased all occupational activity in its         Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992, read in
    territory loses the right to continue to receive family        conjunction with Annex IIa, attendance allowance falls
    benefits paid under that legislation on the ground that        within the scope of that provision and is therefore a
    he has transferred his residence to another Member             special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of
    State where he lives with the members of his family.           Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result that the
                                                                   position of a person, such as the applicant in the main
                                                                   proceedings, who satisfied the conditions for the award of
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.                                         that benefit after 1 June 1992 when Regulation (EEC)
                                                                   No 1247/92 entered into force, is governed exclusively by
                                                                   the system of coordination established by the said
                                                                   Article 10a.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Third Chamber)
                        of 11 June 1998
in Case C-297/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Social Security Commissioner): Vera A. Partridge v
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   Adjudication Officer (1)
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
(Social security Ð Special non-contributory benefits Ð
Articles 4(2a), 5 and 10a of and Annex VI to Regulation            in Case C-361/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Attendance allowance Ð Non-                     the Finanzgericht Köln): SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale des Grandes
                         exportability)                            Sources d'Eaux MineÂrales FrancËaises v Bundesamt für
                                                                                Finanzen (1)
                         (98/C 258/10)
                                                                   (Value added tax Ð Interpretation of Article 3(a) of the
                                                                   Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC Ð Obligation of
                                                                   tax-payers not established in the country concerned to
               (Language of the case: English)                     Annex the original invoices or import documents to
                                                                   applications for a refund of the tax Ð Possibility of
                                                                   annexing a duplicate where the original has been lost for
                                                                           reasons beyond the control of the tax-payer)
In Case C-297/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Social Security Commissioner                                       (98/C 258/11)
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before him between Vera A. Partridge
and the Adjudication Officer Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2 June 1983 (OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6), as                                published in the European Court Reports)
subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992,
p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho               In Case C-361/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
de Almeida (Rapporteur), and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;             of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance


title: Case T-176/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Bank Tejarat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Bank Tejarat v Council
   (Case T-176/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 081/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   Application for the annulment in part, with immediate effect, of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), of 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 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Bank Tejarat:

                           —

                           Point 2 of Table I.B in Annex I to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Point 2 of Table I.B in Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Point 105 of Table I.B in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 on the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

                           —

                           Point 5 of Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012, implementing Regulation No 267/2012.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Declares that the effects of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2012/35, are maintained as regards Bank Tejarat until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 and Implementing Regulation No 709/2012 takes effect;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case T-685/14: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision concerning the notification by Bulgaria of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions — Refusal of internal review — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Lateness — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/36

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-685/14) (1)

   ((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision concerning the notification by Bulgaria of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions - Refusal of internal review - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 381/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, S. Petrova and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2002 final of 31 March 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Bulgaria of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, on industrial emissions, and, secondly, for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 July 2014 (Ares (2014) 2317513) declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission review its decision of 31 March 2014.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               EEB, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-166/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles): Marthe Defreyn v Sabena SA (Equal pay for men and women — Additional pre-retirement payment)

text:
4.11.2000                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 316/7
Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of              that regulation — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member               D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kap-
States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of           teyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the country must be interpreted as meaning that:                             on 13 July 2000, in which it:
—     they grant taxable persons established in a Member State where         1.    Declares that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of
      only part of their transactions are taxed a right to partial refund          the French Customs Code of 11 May 1977 as regards
      of the VAT which has been charged in a Member State where                    Community shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council
      they are not established on goods or services used for the purposes          Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
      of their transactions in the Member State of establishment;                  the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
                                                                                within Member States (maritime cabotage), the French Republic
—     the amount of VAT refundable is calculated, first, by determin-              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;
      ing which transactions give rise to a right to deduction in the
      Member State of establishment and, second, by taking account           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      solely of the transactions which would also give rise to a right
      of deduction in the Member State of refund if they were carried
                                                                             (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      out there and of the expenses giving rise to a right to deduction
      in the latter State.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   of 13 July 2000
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                  in Case C-166/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Cour du travail de Bruxelles): Marthe Defreyn v
                                                                                Sabena SA (1)
                             of 13 July 2000
                                                                             (Equal pay for men and women — Additional pre-retirement
in Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                         payment)
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/13)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
    — Maritime cabotage — Ships flying the French flag)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                            (2000/C 316/12)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             In Case C-166/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Cour du Travail,
                                                                             Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             before that court between Marthe Defreyn and Sabena SA, on
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             the interpretation of Protocol No 2 on Article 119 of the
                                                                             Treaty establishing the European Community, annexed to the
In Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communities                     EC Treaty, and Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
(Agents: F. Benyon and B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents:                 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declar-                equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
ation that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of the                   employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
French Customs Code of 11 May 1977 as regards Community                      conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation                     composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
(EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle                   L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louter-
Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), the                 man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
1.    Protocol No 2 on Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the          1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      European Community, annexed to the EC Treaty, applies to a
      payment such as the additional pre-retirement payment provided       2.    Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.
      for by Collective Agreement No 17, rendered compulsory by the
      Royal Decree of 16 January 1975 and provided for in the
      Collective Labour Agreement of 23 May 1984 concluded                 (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
      within Joint Sub-Committee No 315.1.
2.    An additional payment which, as in the present case, constitutes
      ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
      (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
      Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) is not covered by Article 5 of
      Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
      implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
      women as regards access to employment, vocational training                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      and promotion, and working conditions.
                                                                                of 12 September 2000
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                           in Case C-276/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                           Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to
                                                                           levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
                                                                                1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                           (2000/C 316/15)
                            of 13 July 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-174/99 P: European Parliament v Pierre
                               Richard (1)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of
             Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                           In Case C-276/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic
                           (2000/C 316/14)                                 (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger, and G. Mignot) — application for
                                                                           a declaration that,
                     (Language of the case: French)                        —     by failing to charge value added tax on motorway tolls as
                                                                                consideration for the service supplied to users, contrary
                                                                                to Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
                    in the European Court Reports)                               the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                                — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
In Case C-174/99 P: European Parliament (Agent: J. Sant’Anna,                    assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and
assisted by D. Waelbroeck) appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                 —     by failing to make the corresponding sums, with interest
Chamber) of 9 March 1999 in Case T-273/97 Richard v                              for late payment, available to the Commission as own
Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-45 and II-235, seeking to have                      resources,
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being: Pierre Richard, an official of the European Parliament,             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
residing in Luxembourg, represented by A. Lutgen and J. Felt-              the EC Treaty, — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
gen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                 Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
Luxembourg at their Chambers, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur —                 L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                     teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,
President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragne-               V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
malm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advo-                D. Louterman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                  trators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 Septemb-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it:              er 2000, in which it:


title: Case T-451/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2008 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2008 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
   (Case T-451/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 223/76)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: WellBiz Verein (Eschen, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Schnetzer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2007 (Case R 1575/2006-1) concerning opposition proceedings between WellBiz Verein and Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and the defendant are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2 2008.