title: Case T-442/12: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2017 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Council (Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China — Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty — Partial interim review — Market economy treatment — Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values — Change in circumstances — Obligation to state reasons — Period for adopting a decision on market economy treatment — Rights of the defence — Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2017 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Council
   (Case T-442/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China - Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Partial interim review - Market economy treatment - Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values - Change in circumstances - Obligation to state reasons - Period for adopting a decision on market economy treatment - Rights of the defence - Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   (2017/C 239/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst, S. van Cutsem, F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents) and Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA (Borgoricco, Italy), Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant’Agata sul Santerno, Italy), Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy) and Comercial Química Sarasa, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 182, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that regulation applies to Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd.;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay half of the costs incurred by Changmao Biochemical Engineering and to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering to bear half of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               5.

               Orders Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie Srl and Comercial Química Sarasa, SL to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case T-366/17: Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Poland v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/44

         Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-366/17)
   (2017/C 249/60)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 March 2017 (notified under document C(2017) 1904 on 24 March 2017) refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Starting production of a next-generation diesel engine by Volkswagen Motor Polska’, forming part of the Operational Programme ‘Innovative Economy’ and provided with structural aid within the framework of the ‘Convergence in Poland’ objective;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment of the project ‘Starting production of a next-generation diesel engine by Volkswagen Motor Polska’ by deciding that, on account of its lack of innovation, that project is not guaranteed to be consistent with the priorities of the Operational Programme ‘Innovative Economy’ (Priority Axis IV of that programme), and that, consequently, it does not meet the requirements of Article 41(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 through flagrant contravention of the project assessment deadline.


title: Case F-148/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/52

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-148/15)
   (2016/C 059/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Vanden Casteele, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/306/15 — French-language lawyer-linguists (AD 7) not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition on the ground that he did not have a level of education corresponding to a completed course of legal training from a Belgian, French or Luxemburgish institution of higher education.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the selection and appointment decisions taken in connection with the ‘Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/306/15 based on qualifications and tests’ for ‘French-language (FR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ (EU Official Journal, 21 May 2015), including the decision, referred to in an email of 24 September 2015 to the applicant, that ‘following an examination of your application, … the selection board for the abovementioned competition cannot admit you to the next stage of the competition’.


title: Case F-88/09: Action brought on 23 October 2009 — Z v Court of Justice

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/80

         Action brought on 23 October 2009 — Z v Court of Justice
   (Case F-88/09)
   2010/C 24/154
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant in the interest of the service to another directorate and, second, compensation for non-material loss.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 18 December 2008 to transfer the applicant to the library directorate with effect on 1 January 2009;

               —

               inasmuch as it is necessary, annul the decision of 9 July 2009, received on 13 July 2009 to reject the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material loss;

               —

               order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-461/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 15 October 2012 — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 15 October 2012 — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag
   (Case C-461/12)
   2013/C 9/51
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Granton Advertising BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the expression ‘other securities’ in Article 13 B(d)[5] of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG (1) (as of 1 January 2007, Article 135(1)(f) of the Eighth Directive 2006/112/EG, (2) subsequently amended) be interpreted as covering a Granton card, being a transferable card which is used for the (partial) payment for goods and services, and if so, is the issuing and sale of such a card therefore exempt from the levying of turnover tax?

               2.

               If not, should the expression ‘other negotiable instruments’ in Article 13 B(d)(3), of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG (as of 1 January 2007, Article 135(1)(d) of the Eighth Directive 2006/112/EG, subsequently amended) be interpreted as covering a Granton card, being a transferable card which is used for the (partial) payment for goods and services, and if so, is the issuing and sale of such a card therefore exempt from the levying of turnover tax?

               3.

               If a Granton card is an ‘other security’ or ‘other negotiable instrument’ in the aforementioned sense, is it important for the question of whether the issuing and sale thereof is exempt from the levying of turnover tax that, when that card is used, a levy on (a proportionate part of) the fee paid for it is, for all practical purposes, illusory?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

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


title: Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (State aid — Aid schemes — Incompatibility with the common market — Time-limit for execution of the Commission's decisions — Abolition of aid schemes — Cancellation of outstanding aid — Recovery of aid made available — Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/1

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03) (1)

   (State aid - Aid schemes - Incompatibility with the common market - Time-limit for execution of the Commission's decisions - Abolition of aid schemes - Cancellation of outstanding aid - Recovery of aid made available - Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)
   (2006/C 331/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to ensure the application of Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission decision of 11 July 2001 concerning the State aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of undertakings in the province of Álava in the form of a tax credit of 45 % of the investments made (notified under No C(2001)1759) (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1) — Tax measures in the historic territory of Álava — Obligation to recover aid already paid and obligation to abolish future payments
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all of the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2 and 3 of each of the following decisions:

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2002/820/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Álava in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-485/03);

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2002/892/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Álava (Case C-488/03);

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-487/03);

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (Case C-490/03);

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Guipúzcoa in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-486/03), and

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2002/540/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (Case C-489/03),

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those decisions;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-669/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA (Application for interim measures — REACH — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/20

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-669/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - REACH - Making available on the market and use of biocidal products - Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 059/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany); Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany); Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany); and Diversey Europe Operations BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Advocate)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of ECHA of 16 July 2015 to include company B. as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-68/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C SNC

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C SNC
   (Case C-68/14)
   2014/C 102/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Equitalia Nord SpA

      Defendant: CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. SNC

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the Italian rules in force laid down in Article 3(1) and (4) of Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 2012, as amended in part by converting Law No 135 of 7 August 2012, according to which ‘given the exceptional nature of the economic situation and bearing in mind the priority need to achieve the objectives of controlling public expenditure, as from the date on which this measure enters into force, for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, the updating relating to the variation in the indices of the National Statistics Institute (ISTAT), as provided for under the law in force, shall not apply to the rent payable by the administrations included in the consolidated balance sheet of the public authorities, as determined by ISTAT in accordance with Article 1(3) of Law No 196 of 31 December 2009, or by the independent regulatory authorities, including the Commissione nazionale per le società e la borsa (National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange — Consob) for the use as lessee of premises for institutional purposes’, and, in addition, at paragraph 4, that ‘for the purposes of controlling public expenditure, [Or. 6] in the case of leases for the use of premises for institutional purposes concluded by the central authorities, as determined by ISTAT in accordance with Article 1(3) of Law No 196 of 31 December 2009, and by the independent regulatory authorities, including the Commissione nazionale per le società e la borsa (Consob), the rental payments shall be reduced by 15% of the current rent as from 1 January 2015’, and, ‘as from the date of entry into force of the law converting this decree, the reduction referred to in the previous sentence shall in any event apply to leases which expired or were renewed after that date’, incompatible with the provisions of Article 106(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that they are capable of guaranteeing entities operating in a competitive market an unjustified, discriminatory advantage compared with other entities that operate in the same field but do not benefit from those rules?’

               2.

               Can those rules be regarded as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of and for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that they are capable of guaranteeing entities operating in a competitive market an unjustified and discriminatory advantage compared with other entities that operate in the same field but do not benefit from those same rules?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indications and designations of origin — Simplified registration procedure — Protection of the designation "Spreewälder Gurken")

text:
C 84/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
a)    A benefit such as the advance on maintenance payments                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
      provided for by the Österreichische Bundesgesetz über die            that court between Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich.
      Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern               Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG
      (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant        and Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG — on the validity
      of Advances for the Maintenance of Children), adopted in              of Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 of 18 March
      1985, is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h)       1999 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC)
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications
      on the application of social security schemes to employed             and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their             Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 74,
      families moving within the Community, as amended and                  p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December            President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
      1996.                                                                 the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
b)    A person, one or other of whose parents is an employed person         General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      or is out of work, comes within the scope ratione personae of         a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a member of the
      family of a worker within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                            Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any matter of
      Regulation No 1408/71, read in the light of Article 1(f)(i)
                                                                            such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
      thereof.
                                                                            No 590/1999 of 18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to
c)    Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be                 Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
      construed as meaning that, where a minor child resides with the       indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
      parent who has custody in a Member State other than the               in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
      Member State providing the benefit, and where the other parent,       registers the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’.
      who is under an obligation to pay maintenance, works or is
      unemployed in the Member State providing the benefit, that            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
      child is entitled to receive a family benefit such as the advance
      on maintenance payments provided for by the Unterhaltsvor-
      schussgesetz.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 27 November 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (1)
                         of 6 December 2001
                                                                            (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure
in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of
the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG,                         Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH &                                                 European Communities)
   Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/11)
(Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin — Simplified registration
procedure — Protection of the designation ‘Spreewälder                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                Gurken’)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 84/10)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-270/99 P: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,
                     in the European Court Reports)                         avocat, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
                                                                            4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR
In Case C-269/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  I-A-77 and II-401, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg (Germany)                  so far as the Court of First Instance dismissed Z’s action against


title: Case F-57/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Wiedmann v Parliament

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/45

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Wiedmann v Parliament
   (Case F-57/07)
   (2007/C 183/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Wiedmann (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 June 2006 appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities, inasmuch as it classified him in grade AD 6, step 1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are very similar to those relied on in Case F-12/06 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006, p. 48.


title: Case F-13/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 12 May 2010 — Peláez Jimeno v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Previous complaint — Time-limit for the complaint — Lateness — Proof — Former member of the temporary staff — Appointment as an official — Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/53

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 12 May 2010 — Peláez Jimeno v Parliament
   (Case F-13/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Previous complaint - Time-limit for the complaint - Lateness - Proof - Former member of the temporary staff - Appointment as an official - Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment)
   2010/C 209/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Peláez Jimeno (Relegem-Asse, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and K. Zejdová initially, then by K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision to classify the applicant, as a probationary official, in a grade and step lower than that which she occupied as a member of the temporary staff

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Peláez Jimeno to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.04.2009, p, 40.


title: Case C-369/07: Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/22

         Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-369/07)
   (2007/C 269/44)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and I. Khatzigiannis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by not having taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 12 May 2005 in Case C-415/03, relating to the failure of the Hellenic Republic to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the decision of 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 228(1) EC;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission the proposed penalty payment of EUR 53 611 for each day of delay in compliance with the judgment in Case C-415/03 relating to the decision of 2002, running from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-415/03 has been complied with;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to make a lump sum payment to the Commission, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a daily amount by the number of days over which the failure to fulfil obligations continues, running from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-415/03 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case in relation to the decision of 2002;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In the judgment of 12 May 2005 in Case C-415/03 the Court held that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary for repayment of the aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market — except that relating to the contributions to the national social security institution (IKA) —, in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372 of 11 December 2002, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under that article.

               2.

               Given that the Hellenic Republic has not notified the Commission of any measure to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-415/03, despite assurances to the contrary from the Greek authorities, and that the Hellenic Republic has not yet recovered the aid held to be incompatible with the decision of 2002, the Commission has decided to bring the case before the Court of Justice under Article 228 EC.

               3.

               In accordance with Article 228 EC and the relevant case-law of the Court, where the Commission brings proceedings before the Court of Justice because a Member State has not taken the measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court within the time limit laid down by the Commission, the Commission is to specify the amount of the lump sum and/or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State and which the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances. The final decision as to the financial penalties to be imposed, as provided for by Article 228 EC, is taken by the Court, which in this case has unlimited jurisdiction.

               4.

               Both the amount of the penalty payment and the amount of the lump sum proposed by the Commission to the Court in the present action are calculated according to the method established in the Communication of the Commission of 13 December 2005 on the application of Article 228 EC.


title: Case T-237/01: Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Alcon Universal Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
22.12.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 369/13
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                           INSTANCE
                       of 9 August 2001                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                          in Case T-216/01 (ReiseBank AG v Commission, not yet
                                                                          published).
in Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola v European Invest-
                           ment Bank
(Procedure for interim relief — Suspension from duties —
           Fumus boni juris — Urgency — None)
                        (2001/C 369/20)
                                                                          Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Alcon Univer-
                                                                          sal Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      Market
                                                                                (Case T-237/01)
In Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola, residing in Rome,
represented by L. Isola, avocat, against European Investment
Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —                                              (2001/C 369/22)
application for suspension of the operation of a number of
measures adopted by the EIB concerning the applicant — the                                  (Language of the case: English)
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
9 August 2001, in which he:
1.   Dismissed the application for interim relief;                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2.   Ordered that the costs be reserved.                                  European Communities on 18 September 2001 by Alcon
                                                                          Universal Ltd, represented by Hamish Porter of Theodore
                                                                          Goddard, London (United Kingdom).
                                                                          A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                          was Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commerz-
bank AG against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             munities
                                                                          —     .annul the decision of 18 July 2001 of the Board of
                        (Case T-219/01)                                         Appeal in case R0273/2000-1 and require the Office to
                                                                                refuse the cancellation of the Community trade mark.
                        (2001/C 369/21)
                                                                          —     order the Office to pay the costs.
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Commerz-
bank AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
H. Satzky and B. Maassen, Rechtsanwälte.                                  Proprietor of the Com-        Alcon Universal Ltd.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Community trade           word mark ‘BSS’ for certain goods
                                                                          mark concerned:               in class 5 (registration no 90134)
—    annul the Commission Decision of 17 August 2001 in
     Case COMP/E-1/37.919 addressed to the applicant relat-               Applicant for the declar-     Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
     ing to the refusal of a supplementary request to see                 ation for invalidity:
     documents;
                                                                          Decision of the Cancel-       Invalidity of the Community trade
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               lation Division:              mark
 ---pagebreak--- C 369/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the Appeal intro-             —     It submits that the Commission has assessed the gravity
Appeal:                        duced by Alcon Universal Ltd.                    of the infringement, as it is required to do so under
                                                                                Article 12(2) of Council Regulation No 3975/87 (1),
Grounds of claim:              Failure by the Board of Appeal to                incorrectly and that the categorisation of the infringement
                               recognise the actions undertaken                 under the Commission Guidelines on Fines (2) as ‘very
                               by Alcon Universal Ltd. to restrain              serious’ rather than ‘serious’ is therefore incorrect.
                               the use of the trade mark by other               Although the nature of the infringement as ‘market
                               parties.                                         sharing’ is not disputed the Commission’s assessment of
                                                                                the actual impact and the geographic scope of that impact
                                                                                are contested. The Commission’s calculation and use of
                                                                                the term ‘affected turnover’ is also disputed.
                                                                          —     It argues that the Commission has not proved that the
                                                                                infringement covered the period from 5 September 1989
                                                                                until 15 February 2001.
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavia
Airlines System AB against the Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities                                  —     In relation to co-operation and leniency, it maintains that
                                                                                a number of factors that should have been taken into
                                                                                consideration by the Commission have either not been
                         (Case T-241/01)                                        considered in the Decision or, if they have been con-
                                                                                sidered, the Commission’s assessment is incorrect.
                         (2001/C 369/23)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987
                                                                              laying downthe procedure for the application of the rules on
                                                                              competition to undertaking in the air transport sector (OJ L 374,
                                                                              p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          (2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavian                        Treaty (OJ C9 1998, p. 3).
Airlines System AB, represented by Mr Morten Kofmann of
Kromann Reumert, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      judicially review the calculation of the fine imposed on
       the applicant by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveillard
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
The subject of the application is the Commission Decision
C(2001) 1987 final of 18 July 2001, relating to proceedings
pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty ant Article 53 of the                                      (Case T-258/01)
Agreement on the European Economic Area (case COMP.D.2.
37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and case COMP.D.2 37.386 —
Sun-Air vs. SAS and Maersk Air). In this Decision the                                              (2001/C 369/24)
Commission states that the applicant and Maesk Air A/S have
infringed the competition rules by agreeing to share markets
between them by Maersk Air withdrawing from the Copenha-                                      (Language of the case: French)
gen-Stockholm route and the applicant withdrawing from
the Copenhangen-Venice and Billund-Frankfurt routes, thus
leaving operation exclusively to the other party.
The applicant does not object to the Commission’s finding                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
that it has infringed the competition rules. It merely exercises          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
its right to subject the Commission’s calculation of the fine to          European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveil-
judicial review.                                                          lard, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.


title: Case C-591/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL v Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL v Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.
   (Case C-591/11)
   2012/C 39/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL

      Other parties: Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

      Question referred

   May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2004 in Case C-385/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 September 2004
   in Case C-385/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/37/EEC - Public works contracts - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice)
   (2004/C 273/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-385/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: M. Fiorilli) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought before the Court on 28 October 2002, — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, as the Magistrato per il Po di Parma, a local agency of the Ministry of Public Works (now the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport) awarded contracts for the completion of the construction of an overflow basin to retain flood waters of the Parma watercourse in the Marano area (in the Parma commune) as well as for works relating to the development and completion of an overflow basin for the Enza watercourse and to the retention of flood waters of the Terdoppio watercourse south-west of Cerano by the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, when the conditions necessary in that regard were not satisfied, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case C-365/10: Action brought on 22 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/19

      Action brought on 22 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
      (Case C-365/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/32)
      Language of the case: Slovene

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Kukovec, Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  A declaration that, because for several years running the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air have been exceeded, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, which have since 11 June 2010 been laid down in Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      It is apparent from the annual report produced by the Republic of Slovenia on observance of the binding daily and annual limit values for PM10 that, in the Republic of Slovenia in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, in zones S11, S12 and S14 and in agglomerations SIL and SIM, the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM 10 in ambient air were exceeded. The European Commission has received no official notification concerning exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values in accordance with Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/50/EC.

         (1)  OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case T-525/08: Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Poste Italiane v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/52

         Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Poste Italiane v Commission
   (Case T-525/08)
   (2009/C 44/92)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Poste Italiane (Rome, Italy) (represented by A. Fratini, A. Sandulli and F. Filpo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Upholding of the action and as a result annulment of the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 relating to aid C 42/2006 put into effect by Italy in order to provide a return on the current accounts of Poste Italiane with the State Treasury, not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 relating to aid C 42/2006 put into effect by Italy in order to provide a return on the current accounts of Poste Italiane with the State Treasury. That decision declared incompatible with the common market, ordering its repayment, the system of State aid relating to the return on Poste Italiane current accounts with the Treasury, established by Law No 266 of 23 December 2005, and by the agreement between the Ministry of the Economy and Finance and Poste Italiane of 23 February 2006, which was put into effect by Italy, supposedly unlawfully, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
   In support of its claims the applicant invokes:

               —

               infringement of Article 253 and of the first subparagraph of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, due to errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment, so far as concerns the Commission's application of the prudent borrower test, going so far as to establish a private borrower rate.

               —

               infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, due to a manifest error of assessment, with regard to the evaluation of alternative investments. It is stressed in this respect that, in the course of the administrative proceedings, the Italian authorities stated that the criterion set out in the agreement, governing the management of spare funds derived from the postal collection, penalises Poste with regard to the possibility of making profits from active management, and therefore does not confer any ‘advantage’ for the purposes of Article 87 of the Treaty.

         Here, the applicant also refers to the relevance of the RBS study and of the opinions of financial brokers, and to the comparison with trading type management, with the management of funds from Poste Vita insurance policies, and with the cost of the Treasury's debt.

               —

               Infringement of Article 253 and of the first subparagraph of Article 87 of the Treaty, due to failure to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment, and breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, in relation to the lack of any analysis of the element of advantage and of distortion of competition in the context of the universal service mission assumed by Poste.

               —

               Breach of the general principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality in ordering the alleged aid to be repaid by the recipient.


title: Case C-333/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig — Germany) — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (Free movement of persons — Citizenship of the Union — Equal treatment — Economically inactive nationals of a Member State residing in the territory of another Member State — Exclusion of those persons from special non-contributory cash benefits under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Articles 7(1)(b) and 24 — Condition requiring sufficient resources)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig — Germany) — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig
      (Case C-333/13) (1)

      (Free movement of persons - Citizenship of the Union - Equal treatment - Economically inactive nationals of a Member State residing in the territory of another Member State - Exclusion of those persons from special non-contributory cash benefits under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence for more than three months - Articles 7(1)(b) and 24 - Condition requiring sufficient resources)
      (2015/C 016/05)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Sozialgericht Leipzig

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano

         Defendant: Jobcenter Leipzig

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ as referred to in Articles 3(3) and 70 of the regulation fall within the scope of Article 4 of the regulation.

                  2)

                  Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) thereof, and Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, although those benefits are granted to nationals of the host Member State who are in the same situation, in so far as those nationals of other Member States do not have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State.

                  3)

                  The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the fourth question.

         (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-436/11: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Afriqiyah Airways v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/24

         Order of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Afriqiyah Airways v Council
   (Case T-436/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 89/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Afriqiyah Airways (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: B. Sarfati, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/300/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 85) in so far as it concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T-414/05: Action brought on  22 November 2005  — NHL Enterprises/OHIM

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/33

         Action brought on 22 November 2005 — NHL Enterprises/OHIM
   (Case T-414/05)
   (2006/C 36/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: NHL Enterprises B.V. (Rijswijk, The Netherlands) [represented by: G. Llewelyn, Solicitor]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glory & Pompea (Mataró, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LA KINGS’ for goods in classes 16, 25 and 41 — application No 1 041 102

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manufacturas Antonio Gassol S.A. The mark cited in the opposition was later assigned to Glory & Pompea, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘KING’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the goods applied for in class 25

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the degree of similarity between the marks at issue, notwithstanding the identity of the goods, is not sufficiently high.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-232/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-327/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/52)                                                       (2001/C 118/55)
By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Court of              By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-232/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-327/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                             ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport
                                                                      SpA v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-243/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-362/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/56)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-243/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport           from the register of Case C-362/99: [reference for a preliminary
SpA v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.                 ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: SEIKO
                                                                      Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-284/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-250/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/57)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-284/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: New Yorker           from the register of Case C-250/00: Commission of the
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco.                              European Communities v Portugal.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case C-254/99 P: Appeal brought on 8 July 1999 by Imperial Chemical Industries plc against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between, respectively, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AC, Shell International Chemical Co. Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AC, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AC and Enichem SpA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/17
    (b) in the further alternative, in the event that the dispute is               also in relation to its adoption, since the purpose of such
         not yet capable of being determined, refer the case                       consultation is to enable discussion of the proposed
         back to the Court of First Instance in order for the                      decision — which the Commission must annex to the
         proceedings to be resumed and decided by that Court;                      notice convening the joint meeting — to take place.
2.  order   the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,                    The contested judgment overlooks the fact that the
    alternatively, in the event that the case is referred back,                    obligation to put an end to a contravention, or
    reserve the decision on costs to the Court of First Instance.                  alternatively to refrain from taking action, can be
                                                                                justified only on the basis of a close temporal proximity
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    to the oral hearing, and that it is essential, for that
— Procedural errors:                                                               reason, that a decision in the matter be adopted within
    — Defective composition of the Chamber according to law:                       a short period of time.
         although the Third Chamber, Extended Composition,                         It is correspondingly erroneous, as a matter of law, to
         was properly constituted for the purposes of the oral                     suppose that the determination of the fine remains
         procedure, it was not properly constituted for the pur-                   unaffected by the passage of time. The Commission is
         poses of delivery of the judgment. Where a Judge who is                   required to decide the matter in the proper exercise of
         called upon to take part in the judgment of a case retires                its discretion, but in doing so it must have regard to
         on account of the expiry of his term of office, this does                 the factual situation prevailing at the time when the
         not give rise to an even number of Judges ‘by reason of a                 second decision is adopted. Moreover, it is also obliged
         Judge being absent or prevented from attending’, and,
                                                                                to have regard, when calculating the fine, to the
         by virtue of its very wording, Article 32(1) of the Rules
         of Procedure is not applicable. In the present case, the                  financial situation and, in particular, to take into
         Judge in question had already retired seven months                        account, in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation
         before the judgment was delivered; it is clear that his                   No 17/62, the ‘turnover in the preceding business
         retirement definitively occurred even before the oral                     year’.
         procedure took place, and the Court of First Instance            — Infringement of Article 81(1) EC and of Article 15(2) of
         consequently had a sufficient opportunity to take steps              Regulation No 17/62.
         to ensure in good time that it was composed of five
         Judges, in accordance with the law.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 239 of 14.9.1994, p. 14.
         The delivery of the contested judgment by a Chamber              (2) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87.
         which was not properly composed also constitutes an              (3) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 47.
         infringement of the basic right to trial by a forum
         constituted in accordance with the law.
    — Failure to examine disputed facts: if the Court of First
         Instance considered that the turnover figures pleaded by
         the applicant Hoechst, and confirmed by a reputable
         firm of auditors, were incorrect or doubtful, it should          Appeal brought on 8 July 1999 by Imperial Chemical
         have heard evidence in that regard, since it is not in any       Industries plc against the judgment delivered on 20 April
         way sufficient, for the purposes of finding that there has       1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European
         been an anti-trust violation, to call in question infor-         Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in
         mation provided by individual parties to the proceed-            joined cases T-305/94 (1), T-306/94 (2), T-307/94 (3),
         ings or to characterise that information as unbelievable.        T-313/94 (4), T-314/94 (5), T-315/94 (6), T-316/94 (7),
         On the contrary, the parties concerned must be given             T-318/94 (8), T-325/94 (9), T-328/94 (10), T-329/94 (11) and
         concrete proof of the facts on which there is presumed           T-335/94 (12) between, respectively, Limburgse Vinyl
         to have been a violation of cartel law. If, following            Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AC, Shell Inter-
         exhaustion of the possibilities available for investigating      national Chemical Co. Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststof-
         the matter, doubts continue to exist, the case should be         fen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AC, Société
         decided in favour of the party alleged to be at fault.           Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemi-
— Infringement of Community law;                                          cal Industries plc, Hüls AC and Enichem SpA and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
    — Infringement of Article 231(1) in conjunction with
         Article 230(4) EC, Articles 10(3) and 19(1) of regulation                                 (Case C-254/99 P)
         No 17/62 (2) and Articles 1, 2, 4 and 7 of Regulation
         No 99/63 (3): contrary to the view taken by the Court of                                    (1999/C 352/26)
         First Instance, the adoption of the contested Com-
         mission decision was not preceded either by a hearing            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
         of the parties to the proceeding or by any consultation          by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
         of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and           (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases
         Dominant Positions. Instead, the Court of First Instance         T-305/94 etc. between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV and
         treated as sufficient hearings which had taken place             others and the Commission of the European Communities,
         approximately six years prior to the adoption of the             was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
         contested decision imposing the fine and which related           Communities on 8 July 1999 by Imperial Chemical Industries
         to a decision different from the contested decision.             plc (‘ICI’), of Imperial Chemical House, 9 Millbank, London
         The Court of First Instance has disregarded the require-         SW1, represented by David Vaughan QC, David Anderson QC
         ment that the Advisory Committee on Restrictive                  and Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, instructed by Richard Coles and
         Practices and Dominant Positions must be consulted,              Shirley Turner, Solicitors, with an address for service in
         in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation No 17/62,            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong, 4-6 Rue de
         not only before the proposed decision is adopted but             la Boucherie.
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.12.1999
The appellant asks the Court:                                           Infringement              of    Article 190            EC     (now
                                                                        Article 253)
(1) that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April
    in joined cases T-305/94 etc. between Limburgse Vinyl               The decision of the Commission to take a new Decision
    Maatschappij NV and others and the Commission be                    without serving a new statement of objections, and with
    set aside insofar as it relates to case T-328/94, ICI v             neither a fresh hearing of the undertakings nor fresh consul-
    Commission;                                                         tation of the Advisory Committee, was not only unusual, but
                                                                        wholly unprecedented. In those circumstances the undertak-
(2) that Commission Decision 94/599/EC (13), dated 27 July              ings were entitled to, and did, expect some explanation for the
    1994, be annulled insofar as it relates to ICI; or, failing         manner in which the Commission chose to proceed. Its failure
    that, that this Court do remit this matter to the Court of          to do so constituted a manifest infringement of Article 253.
    First Instance;
(3) that the fine imposed on ICI of EUR 1 550 000, as reduced           Infringement of Article 20(1) of Regulation
    by the Court of First Instance, be set aside, or further            17
    reduced;
                                                                        ICI contends that, contrary to the judgment of the Court of
(4) that the Commission pay ICI’s costs of case T-328/94 and            First Instance, the Commission was not entitled to use
    of this appeal.                                                     documents obtained in other proceedings in the PVC investi-
                                                                        gations, whether or not new copies of these documents were,
                                                                        as a matter of formality, requested for the purposes of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         second investigation, and that the Court of First Instance erred
                                                                        in law by considering that the Commission did not breach
                                                                        Article 20(1).
Power to adopt the PVC II Decision
                                                                        Fines
ICI submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
holding that the Commission validly adopted the PVC II
                                                                        ICI submits that the interpretation by the Court of First
Decision notwithstanding (i) the principle of res judicata; (ii) the
                                                                        Instance of Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 (17) (i) is contrary to
principle of non bis in idem; (iii) the duty to act within a
                                                                        the wording and scheme of the Regulation; (ii) is contrary to
reasonable time.
                                                                        the Court of First Instance’s interpretation of the purpose of
                                                                        Article 3 of the Regulation; (iii) is contrary to the principle in
                                                                        Community law that a party may not benefit from his own
Procedure          in   adoption         of     the     PVC       II    wrongdoing; and (iv) produces nonsensical results.
Decision
The rights of defence in all proceedings in which sanctions             (1) OJ C 331 of 26.11.1994, p. 6.
                                                                        (2) OJ C 380 of 31.12.1994, p. 12.
may be imposed constitute a fundamental principle of Com-               (3) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994, p. 15.
munity law. Applying that principle, Article 19(1) of Council           (4) OJ C 380 of 31.12.1994,p. 15.
Regulation No 17 (14) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation            (5) OJ C 331 of 26.11.1994, p. 7.
No 99/63/EEC (15) require that the undertaking concerned                (6) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994, p. 17.
must have been afforded an opportunity to know the alle-                (7) OJ C 380 of 31.12.1994, p. 16.
gations made against it and to make known its views on those            (8) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994, p. 18.
allegations. In Commission competition proceedings, further             (9) OJ C 370 of 24.12.1994, p. 12.
procedural guarantees are provided by the involvement of a              (10) OJ C 380 of 31.12.1994, p. 18.
Hearing Officer, and the requirement for the Commission to              (11) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994, p. 20.
consult the Advisory Committee.                                         (12) OJ C 370 of 24.12.1994, p. 13.
                                                                        (13) relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                             (IV/31.865 — PCV) (OJ L 239, 14.9.1994, p. 14).
                                                                        (14) of 6 February 1962 (First Regulation implementing Articles 85
The position of the Court of First Instance in the PVC II                    and 86 of the Treaty, OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1960, p.
judgment is, in essence, that these procedural guarantees were               87).
adequately provided by the procedural steps taken prior to the          (15) of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1)
PVC I Decision in 1988 (16), that is to say some six years before            and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition
the PVC II Decision was taken in 1994. ICI submits that the                  1963-1964, p. 47).
Court of First Instance erred in law on this point. First,              (16) Commission Decision 89/190/EEC of 21 December 1988 relat-
the annulment of the PVC I Decision rendered invalid the                     ing to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
Commission’s procedural steps taken prior to the PVC I                       (IV/31.865, PVC) (OJ 1989 L 74, p.1).
Decision. Secondly, even if ICI is wrong on that point, ICI             (17) of the Council of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation
submits that the adoption of a new decision by the Com-                      periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under
                                                                             the rules of the European Economic Community relating to
mission in any event required a rehearing of the undertakings,               transport and competition (OJ L 319, 29.11.1974, p. 1).
a new report by the Hearing Officer and fresh consultation of
the Advisory Committee. A delay of six years between the
procedural guarantees and the relevant Decision is not only
exorbitant, but a dental of all protection of legal rights.


title: Case C-497/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 September 2013 — F. Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 September 2013 — F. Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV
   (Case C-497/13)
   2013/C 367/37
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F. Faber

      Defendant: Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the national court, either on the grounds of the principle of effectiveness, or on the grounds of the high level of consumer protection within the European Union sought by Directive 1999/44, (1) or on the grounds of other provisions or norms of European law, obliged to investigate of its own motion whether, in relation to a contract, the purchaser is (a) consumer within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 1999/44?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does it also apply if the case file contains no (or insufficient or contradictory) information to enable the status of the purchaser to be determined?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does it also apply to appeal proceedings, where the purchaser has not raised any complaint against the judgment of the court of first instance, to the extent that in that judgment that assessment (of its own motion) was not carried out, and the question of whether the purchaser may be deemed to be a consumer was expressly left open?

               4.

               Must (Article 5 of) Directive 1999/44 be regarded as a norm which is equivalent to the national rules which in the internal legal system are deemed to be rules of public policy?

               5.

               Do the principle of effectiveness, the high level of consumer protection within the European Union sought by Directive 1999/44 or other provisions or norms of European Union law preclude Netherlands law relating to the burden resting on the consumer-purchaser of presenting the facts and adducing the evidence in relation to the duty of notifying the seller (in good time) of the presumed lack of conformity of delivered goods?

               6.

               Do the principle of effectiveness, the high level of consumer protection within the European Union sought by Directive 1999/44 or other provisions or norms of European Union law preclude Netherlands law relating to the burden resting on the consumer-purchaser of presenting the facts and adducing the evidence that the goods are not in conformity and that that lack of conformity became apparent within six months of delivery? What is the meaning of the words ‘any lack of conformity which becomes apparent’ in Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 and in particular: to what extent must the consumer-purchaser establish facts and circumstances concerning (the cause of) the lack of conformity? Is it sufficient in that regard that the consumer-purchaser establish, and in the case of a substantiated challenge prove, that the purchased goods do not function (well), or must he also establish, and in the case of a substantiated challenge prove, which defect in the purchased goods caused the purchased goods not to function (well)?

               7.

               Does the fact that Ms Faber has been assisted by a lawyer in both instances in these proceedings still play a role when answering the foregoing questions?

      (1)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ L 171, p. 12).


title: Case C-205/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of slots at European Union airports — Article 4(2) — Independence of the coordinator — Concept of ‘interested party’ — Airport managing body — Functional separation — System of financing)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-205/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Air transport - Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 - Allocation of slots at European Union airports - Article 4(2) - Independence of the coordinator - Concept of ‘interested party’ - Airport managing body - Functional separation - System of financing))
   (2016/C 287/02)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and V. Moura Ramos, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure that the coordinator for the allocation of slots is independent by separating the coordinator functionally from any single interested party and by failing to ensure that the system of financing the coordinator’s activities is such as to guarantee the coordinator’s independent status, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 545/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-324/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Município de Gondomar v Commission (Action for annulment — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Cancellation of financial assistance — Lack of direct effect — Admissibility)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Município de Gondomar v Commission
   (Case T-324/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Cancellation of financial assistance - Lack of direct effect - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 285/73)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Município de Gondomar (Portugal) (represented by: J. da Cruz Vilaça, D. Choussy and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra and Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/017 — Redevelopment of Grande Porto Sul — Subsistema de Gondomar.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Município de Gondomar shall bear its own costs and those of the Commission, including the costs incurred in the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-502/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 to 5 and 10 — Annex I, Sections A, B and D — Urban waste-water treatment — Collecting systems — Secondary or equivalent treatment — More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/9

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-502/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 to 5 and 10 - Annex I, Sections A, B and D - Urban waste-water treatment - Collecting systems - Secondary or equivalent treatment - More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas))
   (2017/C 213/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, Agent, and by S. Ford, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive;

               2.

               Declares that, by not putting in place secondary treatment for the urban waste water in the Ballycastle agglomeration and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, Directive 91/271;

               3.

               Declares that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the Tiverton, Durham (Barkers Haugh), Chester-le-Street, Islip, Broughton Astley, Chilton, Witham and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4 of Directive 91/271, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, that directive;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-544/12: Action brought on 27 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/15

         Action brought on 27 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-544/12)
   2013/C 46/28
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Simonsson and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 6(2), 7, 8, 9 and 13 of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/12/EC at the daily rate of EUR 75 002,88 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2009/12/EC expired on 15 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11.


title: Case C-358/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2012 — Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici v Comune di Milano

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2012 — Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici v Comune di Milano
   (Case C-358/12)
   2012/C 311/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici

      Defendant: Comune di Milano

      Question referred

   Do the principle of proportionality which arises from the right of establishment and the principles of non-discrimination and protection of competition laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 101 TFEU, and the principle of reasonableness enshrined therein, preclude national legislation which, in relation to contracts both above and below the Community threshold, classifies as serious an infringement relating to contribution obligations which has been definitively established, where the amount thereof exceeds EUR 100,00 and is at the same time greater than 5 % of the difference between the sums owed and those paid in respect of each payment or contribution period, with the consequent obligation on the contracting authority to exclude from the tender process any competitor who has committed such an infringement, without assessing other aspects which objectively demonstrate the competitor’s reliability as a contractual partner?


title: Joined Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Activity unconnected with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament — Procedure for waiving immunity — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Joined Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11) (1)

   (Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive immunity - Activity unconnected with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament - Procedure for waiving immunity - Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 63/36
   Language of the cases: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, action for annulment of a decision adopted by the European Parliament on 10 May 2011 to waive the immunity of the applicant, and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant in connection therewith and, second, action for annulment of the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant, adopted by the European Parliament on 10 May 2011, and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant in connection therewith.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action for annulment and the application for compensation in Case T-346/11;

               2.

               rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment in Case T-347/11;

               3.

               dismisses the application for compensation in Case T-347/11;

               4.

               orders Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs, including those relating to the applications for interim measures in Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-109/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market in soda ash in the Community — Abuse of dominant position — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Access to the file — Hearing of the undertaking)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission
   (Case C-109/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Market in soda ash in the Community - Abuse of dominant position - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Access to the file - Hearing of the undertaking)
   2011/C 370/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis and A. Vallery, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] — Competition — Soda ash market in the Community (excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland) — Abuse of a dominant position — Infringement of the right to be tried within reasonable time — Infringement of procedural rights — Wrong earlier definition of the relevant geographic market — Lack of statement of reasons — Exceptional circumstances showing lack of a dominant position

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash — Solvay);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.