title: Judgment of the Court 19 February 2002 in Case C-309/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (Professional body — National Bar — Regulation by the Bar of the exercise of the profession — Prohibition of multi-disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and accountants — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Association of undertakings — Restriction of competition — Justification — Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Undertaking or group of undertakings — Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 and 49 EC) — Applicability — Restrictions — Justification)

text:
C 109/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             4.5.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2.    A national regulation such as the 1993 Regulation adopted by
                                                                                a body such as the Bar of the Netherlands does not infringe
                                                                                Article 85(1) of the Treaty, since that body could reasonably
                          19 February 2002                                       have considered that that regulation, despite effects restrictive of
                                                                                competition, that are inherent in it, is necessary for the proper
                                                                                practice of the legal profession, as organised in the Member
in Case C-309/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        State concerned.
the Raad van State): J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price
Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van                       3.    A body such as the Bar of the Netherlands does not constitute
           de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (1)                                 either an undertaking or a group of undertakings for the
                                                                                purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC).
(Professional body — National Bar — Regulation by the Bar                  4.    It is not contrary to Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now,
of the exercise of the profession — Prohibition of multi-                        after amendment, Articles 43 and 49 EC) for a national
disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and                         regulation such as the 1993 Regulation to prohibit any multi-
accountants — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81                        disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and
EC) — Association of undertakings — Restriction of compe-                        accountants, since that regulation could reasonably be con-
tition — Justification — Article 86 of the Treaty (now                           sidered to be necessary for the proper practice of the legal
Article 82 EC) — Undertaking or group of undertakings —                          profession, as organised in the country concerned.
Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 43 and 49 EC) — Applicability — Restrictions —
                             Justification)                                (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                           (2002/C 109/05)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                7 March 2002
In Case C-309/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                 in Case C-310/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
EC by the Raad van State for a preliminary ruling in the                                       European Communities (1)
proceedings pending before that court between J.C.J. Wouters,
J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV and
Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten,                       (State aid — Guidelines on aid to employment — Measures
intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap,                intended to promote youth employment and convert fixed-
on the interpretation of Articles 3(g) of the EC Treaty (now,              term contracts into open-ended ones — Reduction of social
after amendment, Article 3(1)(g) EC), 5 of the EC Treaty (now                                     security contributions)
Article 10 EC), 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 43 and 49 EC), and 85, 86 and 90 of the
EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC), the Court,                                           (2002/C 109/06)
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, and S. von Bahr (Presidents of                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
General; H. von Holstein, Registrar; Deputy Registrar, has                                     in the European Court Reports)
given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    A regulation concerning partnerships between members of the          In Case C-310/99, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      Bar and other professionals, such as the Samenwerkingsveror-         by O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European Communities
      dening 1993 (1993 regulation on joint professional activity),        (Agents: initially G. Rozet and P. Stancanelli, and, subsequently,
      adopted by a body such as the Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten         G. Rozet and V. Di Bucci): Application for annulment of
      (the Bar of the Netherlands), is to be treated as a decision         Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concern-
      adopted by an association of undertakings within the meaning         ing aid granted by Italy to promote employment (OJ 2000
      of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC).                  L 42, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric


title: Case C-163/14: Action brought on 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/17

         Action brought on 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-163/14)
   2014/C 184/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to grant the institutions and bodies of the European Union the exemption provided for by the second subparagraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union from the contributions established by Article 26 of the Order concerning the organisation of the electricity market in the Brussels-Capital Region, and by Article 20 of the Order concerning the organisation of the gas market in the Brussels-Capital Region, as amended and by precluding the reimbursement of those contributions thereby paid by the Region, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Orders of 19 July 2001 concerning the organisation of the electricity market in the Brussels-Capital Region and of 1 April 2004 concerning the organisation of the gas market in the Brussels-Capital Region, as amended, provide for the payment of duties by the suppliers of electricity and gas in favour of the Brussels-Capital Region. Those regional contributions are then invoiced to the end consumers and therefore to the institutions of the European Union at the time of the supply of electricity or gas in accordance with the wattage made available to the end customers (for electricity) or the meter-readings at the end customers’ premises (for gas).
   The Commission considers that those regional contributions must be classified as indirectly collected by the Belgian authorities at the time of large purchases made by the institutions for their official use and incorporated in the price of electricity and gas which is invoiced to them. The Commission points out that it is not necessary, for the purpose of identifying an indirect tax, that there be express provision in the legislation for an end customer pass-on requirement and that it is decisive that there is a tax levied at the time of consumption or the incurring of expenditure. As a consequence, it considers that the Belgian State is obliged under the second subparagraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union to reimburse those indirect duties or sales taxes to the institutions of the European Union.
   The Commission claims that those regional contributions may not be classified as a mere charge for a public utility service and that they therefore do not fall within the exception to the exemption provided for by the third subparagraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. Those contributions are intended to finance various public service tasks and partially finance various policies implemented by the public authorities with social objectives (for example, social tariff, minimum supplies of electricity to households) or environmental (for example, promotion of sustainable energy use). Those taxes do not amount to payment for a service supplied specifically to the institutions.


title: Case C-313/13: Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecţie Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecţie Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu
   (Case C-313/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/38
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-330/13: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Khatziioannou v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment — Cyprus stability support programme — Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/24

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Khatziioannou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-330/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Cyprus stability support programme - Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 448/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lella Khatziioannou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, acting as Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Lella Khatziioannou is ordered to pay, in addition to her own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-114/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v The Slovak Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/48/EC — Trans-European networks — Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system — Failure to transpose)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v The Slovak Republic
   (Case C-114/06) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/48/EC - Trans-European networks - Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system - Failure to transpose)
   (2007/C 82/12)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and T. Kukal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: The Slovak Republic (represented by: R. Procházka, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96 of 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-556/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-556/16)
   (2017/C 038/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lutz GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Are the European Commission Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (1) on subheading 6212 2000 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1, at p. 255) to be interpreted as meaning that a panty girdle has ‘restricted horizontal’ elasticity where the horizontal elasticity is less than the vertical elasticity?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:
                           On the basis of which objective criteria is this comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity to be made?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Are the European Commission Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union on subheading 6212 2000 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1, at p. 255) to be interpreted as meaning that a panty girdle has ‘restricted horizontal’ elasticity only where the horizontal elasticity is clearly less than the vertical elasticity?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:
                           On the basis of which objective criteria is this comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity to be made and which assessment criterion should be applied in that respect?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Are the European Commission Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union on subheading 6212 2000 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1, at p. 255) to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction of horizontal elasticity in panty girdles is not defined by a comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity but refers rather to an absolute restriction of horizontal elasticity?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 3(a) is in the affirmative:

                     On the basis of which objective criteria is it necessary to examine whether the elasticity of a panty girdle is restricted horizontally within the meaning referred to under 3(a)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case C-239/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/8

         Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-239/12 P)
   2012/C 200/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor, E. Grieves, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:

               —

               the Order of the General Court dated 28.2.12 is quashed

               —

               it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose

               —

               the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application

               —

               the Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs in the General Court below, including those of making representations upon the Court's invitation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant bases his appeal on the following two pleas in law:

               —

               that the General Court erred when it failed to:

                           —

                           hear from the Advocate-General, and/or;

                           —

                           invite representations from the appellant as to whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose, and/or;

                           —

                           open the oral procedure on the question of whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose.

               —

               the General Court erred in finding that the action for annulment was not capable of conferring material advantage upon the appellant.


title: Case C-151/06: Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-151/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/80)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 06.05.2006.


title: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy)) — Francesco Acanfora v Equitalia Sud SpA — Agente di Riscossione Latina and Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Latina (Case C-181/13) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 107 TFEU — ‘State aid’  — National legislation which, in the event that tax is not paid, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as remuneration for tax collection activities — Description of the factual context — Lack of description — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/5

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy)) — Francesco Acanfora v Equitalia Sud SpA — Agente di Riscossione Latina and Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Latina

      (Case C-181/13)
       (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 107 TFEU - ‘State aid’ - National legislation which, in the event that tax is not paid, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as remuneration for tax collection activities - Description of the factual context - Lack of description - Manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 184/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesco Acanfora

      Defendants: Equitalia Sud SpA — Agente di Riscossione Latina, Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Latina

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina — Interpretation of Article 107 TFEU — ‘State aid’ — National legislation which, in the event that the assessment notice is not complied with, obliges the taxable person to pay the tax collection agency an amount equal to 9% of the sums entered in the tax roll as collection fees

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) by decision of 5 December 2012 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013.


title: Case C-526/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — IVD GmbH & Co. KG v Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe (Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(9), second subparagraph, point (c) — Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ — Condition relating to the financing of the activity, or to management supervision, or to supervision of the activity by the State, by regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law — Association of medical practitioners — Financing provided for by law by means of contributions paid by the members of that association — Amount of the contributions fixed by the assembly of that association — Independence of that association in determining the scope and the rules for the performance of its statutory duties)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — IVD GmbH & Co. KG v Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe
   (Case C-526/11) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(9), second subparagraph, point (c) - Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ - Condition relating to the financing of the activity, or to management supervision, or to supervision of the activity by the State, by regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law - Association of medical practitioners - Financing provided for by law by means of contributions paid by the members of that association - Amount of the contributions fixed by the assembly of that association - Independence of that association in determining the scope and the rules for the performance of its statutory duties)
   2013/C 325/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IVD GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe

      intervening party: WWF Druck + Medien GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 1(9)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2002 L 134, p. 114) — Concept of ‘public authorities’ — Conditions of being financed, for the most part, by the State and subject to management supervision by the State — Professional association, which has the right by law to raise contributions from its members, the amount and use of those contributions having to be set by regulations requiring State approval

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, a body such as a professional association governed by public law satisfies neither the criterion relating to financing for the most part by the public authorities when that body is financed for the most part by contributions paid by its members, in respect of which it is authorised by law to fix and collect the amount, if that law does not determine the scope of, and procedures for, the actions undertaken by that body in the performance of its statutory tasks, which those contributions are intended to finance, nor the criterion relating to management supervision by the public authorities simply because the decision by which that body sets the amount of those contributions must be approved by a supervisory authority.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case F-16/08: Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Behmer v Parliament

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/32

         Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Behmer v Parliament
   (Case F-16/08)
   (2008/C 116/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority to award the applicant two merit points for the years 2004 and 2006.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the appointing authority to award the applicant two merit points for the years 2004 and 2006;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-324/17: Action brought on 29 May 2017 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/53

         Action brought on 29 May 2017 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission
   (Case T-324/17)
   (2017/C 239/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark), Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden), SAS AB (Stockholm) (represented by: B. Creve, M. Kofmann and G. Forwood, lawyers and J. Killick, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in whole or in part;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the level of the fine imposed in the applicants;

               —

               adopt the requested measures of organization of procedure or measures of inquiry, or any other such measures as the Court deems necessary; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicants’ right of defence and the principle of equality of arms, in refusing the applicants access to relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, including evidence which the Commission received after notification of its Statement of Objections.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a lack of competence with respect to the application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to airfreight services that were inbound into the EEA, as well as routes between Switzerland and the three non EU-EEA States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error in the Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its conclusion that this proves the applicants’ participation in, or knowledge of, the global single and continuous infringement found in the contested decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 266 TFEU, Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 296(2) TFEU in that the contested decision is internally inconsistent, in particular as regards the attribution of liability for the alleged infringement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission was wrong to impose any fine on the applicants, as they cannot be liable for the alleged infringement, and in any case the Commission erred in the fine calculation as regards the values of the sales, the gravity factor related to SAS Cargo’s particular situation, the duration, the recidivism uplift and the various mitigating circumstances; as such the fine should be annulled or alternatively significantly reduced.


title: Case T-71/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —    The applicant further submits that the final instalment of
                                                                              the State aid which had been authorised by
—     annul in whole or in part, under Articles 230 EC and                    Decision 1999/332/EC was never paid to it, an omission
      231 EC, the Commission decision of 11 December 2002                     known to, and approved by, the Commission and consti-
      (C(2002) 4831 final) on State aid granted by Greece to                  tuting an amendment of the restructuring programme to
      the applicant;                                                          which the Commission had likewise agreed. On the basis
                                                                              of that submission, the applicant contends that the
                                                                              principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   an essential procedural requirement have been breached
                                                                              by the Commission which now pleads breach of the
                                                                              original programme, when that programme, with the
                                                                              agreement of the Commission itself, was never completed.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               The applicant also pleads breach of the non bis in idem
                                                                              rule, arguing that the non-payment of the final instalment
                                                                              of the State aid constitutes a penalty imposed by the
The applicant is an air transport company whose head office                   Commission, which has thus exhausted its right to
is in Athens. By the contested decision, the Commission                       impose penalties and is unable to go back.
declared certain restructuring aid which had been granted by
Greece to the applicant to be incompatible with the common
market within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, on the ground
that the conditions subject to which the aid had initially been
authorised by Commission Decision 1999/332/EC were no
longer met. In the decision, the Commission also declared
incompatible with the common market new State aid
implemented by Greece in favour of the applicant in the form
of tolerance of its prolonged non-payment of social security
contributions, value added tax, the airport passenger tax
known as ‘Spatosimo’ and charges and rent which were                     Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon Co.,
payable by it to airports. The Commission required Greece to             Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communi-
take all the necessary measures to recover from the applicant                                           ties
the abovementioned aid.
                                                                                (Case T-71/03)
In support of its action, the applicant pleads:
—     that the Commission committed manifest errors of                                           (2003/C 112/65)
      assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state
      reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
      burden of proof and infringed the right to a fair hearing
      so far as concerns its conclusions that Greece failed to                             (Language of the case: English)
      comply with certain of the undertakings entered into by
      it and referred to in Decisions 1999/332/EC and 94/696/
      EC. The applicant also pleads that Article 87(3)(c) EC was
      infringed or misapplied in that the Commission failed
      to examine sufficiently or correctly whether the aid               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      authorised in 1998 could be considered compatible with             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      that article.                                                      European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon
                                                                         Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, represented by Mr Gerwin Van Gerven
—     that the Commission committed manifest errors of                   and Mr Thomas Franchoo, Lawyers, with an address for service
      assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state        in Luxembourg.
      reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
      burden of proof, infringed the right to a fair hearing and
      offended against the principle of legal certainty so far as
      concerns its findings relating to the new aid purportedly          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      granted by Greece to the applicant in the form of
      tolerance of non-payment of charges, tax and rent, as
      referred to above.                                                 —    annul Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2002)
                                                                              5083 final of 17 December 2002 in Case COMP/E-2/
                                                                              37.667 — Speciality Graphite, insofar as it imposes a fine
—     that the Commission misused its powers since, in the                    of — 6,97 million on the applicant, or alternatively, to
      applicant’s submission, the motive for the contested                    substantially reduce that fine; and
      decision is the desire that the ‘coup de grâce’ be adminis-
      tered to the applicant or at least that the applicant be
      weakened.                                                          —    order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-72/03)
The current application is brought against the Commission’s
Decision, of 17 December 2002, relating to proceedings under                                       (2003/C 112/66)
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
Agreement in Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Specialty Graphite,                                     (Language of the case: English)
in which it was found that certain undertakings, including
Tokai, had infringed EC/EEA competition law by fixing prices,
exchanging commercial information, fixing trading conditions
and dividing customers for isostatic graphite.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Toyo Tanso Co.,
                                                                          Ltd., Osaka, Japan, represented by Mr Jean-François Bellis an
                                                                          Ms Stephanie Reinart, Lawyers, with an address for service in
The applicant, a Japanese company producing carbon prod-                  Luxembourg.
ucts, does not contest the facts concerning its participation in
the infringement. Its purpose is the annulment, or at least the
substantial reduction of the fine imposed.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
                                                                                the applicant
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:                —     order the Commission to bear the costs.
—     the Commission infringed Article 253 EC, the principles
      of proportionality and equal treatment, and the principles          Pleas in law and main arguments
      of non bis in idem and the limits of its jurisdiction
      because it completely disregarded EEA sales and market
      share in determining the impact of competition of each              The applicant is a small company in Japan specialising in the
      undertaking’s conduct and the level of the fine. It is              production of specialty graphite. In the Decision of the
      stressed on this point that, as a japanese producer, the            Commission of 17 December 2002 in Case COMP/E-2/
      applicant has always been much less active in the EEA               37.667 — Specialty Graphite, the Commission found that
      market because its natural market is Asia and the Far               the applicant had participated together with seven other
      East.                                                               companies in an infringement of Article 81(1) EC Treaty and
                                                                          Article 53(1) EEA Agreement relating to isostatic specialty
                                                                          graphite. The applicant seeks the reduction of the fine imposed
                                                                          on it in Article 3 of the Decision.
—     The Commission made a manifest error of assessment,
      by wrongly estimating the size of the relevant market, in
      as much as the data on which it relied in the contested             The applicant submits that the Commission has violated the
      Decision suggest themselves that the applicant’s relevant           rights of defence of the applicant and infringed several
      market share is below 10 %, although Tokai Carbon Co.,              principles of Community law, such as the principle of pro-
      Ltd. is put in the category of firms who have a market              portionality, equal treatment and legal certainty.
      share between 10 %-20 %.
                                                                          According to the applicant, the Commission was wrong to set
—     The Commission misapplied the Leniency Notice by not                the starting point for the calculation of the applicant’s fine
      granting Tokai a fine reduction account of leniency under           solely by reference to its world-wide turnover and market
      Section C, as the applicant was the first to submit decisive        share. The applicant claims that the Commission has violated
      evidence with regard to the time periods during which               the rights of defence as the statement of objections indicated
      UCAR International Inc.was not a participant in the                 that the cartel outside the EEA was outside of its scope and
      cartel.                                                             failed to highlight the significance which the Commission
                                                                          would attribute to the world-wide product turnover and
                                                                          market share in determining the starting point for the fine.
                                                                          According to the applicant, the infringement had no world-
                                                                          wide scope and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in
                                                                          relying on this factor to determine the starting point of the
                                                                          calculation of the fine.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 1999 in Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera SA (Infrisa) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action declared manifestly unfounded — Sanitary policy — Protective Measures — Decision 95/119/EC)

text:
C 34/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             5.2.2000
1. Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary to ensure           1. A member of the family of a migrant worker of Moroccan
    that the waste discharged into the watercourse bisecting the San           nationality, where that worker has acquired the nationality of his
    Rocco valley is disposed of without risk to human health or harm           host Member State before the date on which the said member of
    to the environment and by not taking the measures necessary to             his family began to live with him there and applied for a social
    ensure that waste stored in a fly-tip be handed over to a private          security benefit under the legislation of that State, cannot rely on
    or public waste collector or a waste disposal undertaking, Italy           Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the Euro-
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of          pean Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
    Article 4 and the first indent of Article 8 of Council Directive           in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
    75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                 Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
    Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.                                     26 September 1978, as a ground for invoking that worker’s
                                                                               Moroccan nationality for the purposes of obtaining the benefit of
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application.                                 the principle of equal treatment in the field of social security laid
                                                                               down in that provision.
3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               Such a member of the family of a Moroccan migrant worker,
                                                                               where that worker also has the nationality of the host Member
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                               State, could invoke his Moroccan nationality for the purposes of
                                                                               the application of Article 41(1) of the Agreement, solely on the
                                                                               basis of the law of the Member State concerned, which it is for
                                                                               the national court alone, however, to interpret and apply in the
                                                                               proceedings before it.
                                                                           2. The term ‘members of the family’, within the meaning of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         Article 41(1) of the Agreement, of a Moroccan migrant worker
                                                                               extends to relatives in the ascending line of that worker and of
                                                                               his spouse who live with him in the host Member State.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 11 November 1999                                  (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
in Case C-179/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Belgian State v Fatna
                              Mesbah (1)
(EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41(1) —
Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security
                    — Scope ratione personae)                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (2000/C 34/14)                                                             (First Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                 of 14 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     SA (Infrisa) v Commission of the European Communi-
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                           ties (1)
In Case C-179/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              (Appeal — Action declared manifestly unfounded — Sani-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du                         tary policy — Protective Measures — Decision 95/119/EC)
Travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Belgian State and Fatna Mesbah — on the                                                  (2000/C 34/15)
interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the
Kingdom of Morocco signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1976 L 264,
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber acting for the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragne-
malm, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            In Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it has ruled:                       SA (Infrisa), established in Bermeo, Spain, represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 34/9
I. Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández and Morales Isasi, of the Viz-           (1) The appeal is dismissed.
caya Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias — against the order                (2) N is to pay the costs.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber) in Case T-136/95, Infrisa v Commission,
[1998] ECR II-3301, seeking to have that order set aside, the              (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: J. Guerra Fernández) — the
Court (First Chamber) composed of L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocat General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass has made an
order on 14 October 1999 in which it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Portuguese
2. Orders Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conserera SA (Infrisa) to pay                                      Republic
     the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-392/99)
( 1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 34/17)
                                                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Lena Ström and António Caeiros,
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                         (Third Chamber)                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       of 19 October 1999                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case C-21/99 P: N v Commission of the European                          (a) Declare that:
                          Communities (1)
                                                                               — by failing to adopt the provisions by which the
(Appeal — Former officials — Staff report — Interest in                            competent authority, before granting a permit to the
            bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)                                undertakings which regenerate waste oils or use waste
                                                                                oils as fuel, may satisfy itself that all appropriate health
                          (2000/C 34/16)                                           protection measures in the field of regeneration of
                                                                                waste oils have been taken, including use of the best
                                                                                technology available, where the cost is not excessive,
                    (Language of the case: French)                                 in the field of regeneration of waste oils and the use of
                                                                                waste oils as fuel;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         — by failing to ensure that the residues from the combus-
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  tion of waste oils are disposed of in accordance with
                                                                                Article 9 of Directive 78/319/EEC (1) and, from 27 June
In Case C-21/99 P: N, a former official of the Commission of                       1995, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive
the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium),                          75/442/EEC (2), which, as amended by Directive 91/
represented by G. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an                      156/EEC (3) and pursuant to Directive 91/689/EEC (4),
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,                       replaced Article 9 of Directive 78/319/EEC;
31 Grand-Rue — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of                        — by failing to provide for regular inspections of the
30 November 1998 in Case T-97/94 N v Commission [1998]                             undertakings regenerating waste oils or which use
ECR-SC I-A-621 and II-1879, seeking to have that order set                         waste oils as fuel and for the examination of trends in
aside and applying for the grant of the form of order sought                       the state of technical development and/or of the
by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance, the other                   environment with a view to revising, where necessary,
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                               permits granted to such undertakings;
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Duvieusart-
Clotuche) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                            — by failing to convey to the Commission information
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, C. Gulmann                         concerning its technical expertise and the experience
(Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                   gained and results obtained through the application of
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 19 October                      measures taken pursuant to Directive 75/439/EEC (5),
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                   as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC(6),


title: Case T-462/07: Action brought on 19 December 2007 — GALP Energia España and Others v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/50

         Action brought on 19 December 2007 — GALP Energia España and Others v Commission
   (Case T-462/07)
   (2008/C 51/92)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: GALP Energia España SA (Madrid, Spain), Petróleos de Portugal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) and GALP Energia, SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Primarily, to set aside the contested decision; or

               —

               alternatively, to set aside Articles 1, 2 and 3 of that decision as far as the applicants are concerned; or

               —

               alternatively, to set aside Article 2 of the decision to the extent that a fine has been imposed on the applicants; or

               —

               alternatively to reduce the fine that has been imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               to order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants request annulment, in whole or partially, of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain) by which the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, participated in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the penetration bitumen business which covered the territory of Spain and which consisted in market sharing agreements and price coordination.
   In support of their claims the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               the Commission, in violation of the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, failed to institute a fair, careful and impartial investigation, substituting its own independent investigation of the relevant facts by vague and incorrect accusations made by other leniency applicants;

               —

               the Commission allegedly breached Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) through manifest errors of appraisal and misapplication of the law, by finding that GALP Energia España took part in customer allocation, in monitoring and compensation mechanisms, or in any of the price arrangements, as described in the contested decision;

               —

               the Commission further breached Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 through its determination of the duration of the alleged breach of Article 81 EC by concluding that GALP Energia España's involvement in the prohibited practices lasted until October 2002. In addition, the applicants submit that the Commission violated the abovementioned provisions in determining the level of the fine imposed on them;

               —

               finally, since the Commission failed to carry out a careful and independent investigation, there was a defective adduction of evidence and a breach of the principle of the obligation to state reasons, embodied in Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-103/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Versalis and Eni v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Chloroprene rubber market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Evidence of involvement in the agreement — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Repeat offending — Deterrence — Attenuating circumstances — Maximum turnover limit of 10 % — Cooperation — 2002 Leniency Notice — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Versalis and Eni v Commission
   (Case T-103/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Chloroprene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Evidence of involvement in the agreement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Repeat offending - Deterrence - Attenuating circumstances - Maximum turnover limit of 10 % - Cooperation - 2002 Leniency Notice - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2013/C 38/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) and Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented: initially by M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, V. Ruotolo, V. Larocca and D. Durante; and subsequently by M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, V. Larocca and D. Durante, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene rubber), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, a request for annulment or reduction of the level of the fine imposed jointly on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes the level of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Eni SpA and Versalis SpA for the offence stated in Article 1(d) of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene rubber) at EUR 106 200 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Eni and Versalis to bear four fifths of their costs and four fifths of the costs of the European Commission and orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs of Eni and Versalis.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case F-144/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2013 — Mateo Pérez v Commission (Civil Service — General competition — Application for annulment of a corrigendum to a notice of competition — Corrigendum not providing for conditions excluding the applicant — No act having adverse effects — Non-admission to selection tests — Admissibility — Time-limits for bringing actions — Lateness — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2013 — Mateo Pérez v Commission
   (Case F-144/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - General competition - Application for annulment of a corrigendum to a notice of competition - Corrigendum not providing for conditions excluding the applicant - No act having adverse effects - Non-admission to selection tests - Admissibility - Time-limits for bringing actions - Lateness - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 252/92
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Mateo Pérez (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: I. Ruiz García, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests following publication of a corrigendum to the notice of competition annulling the eliminatory mark for situational judgment test (d).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and the costs of Mr Mateo Pérez arising as from 14 March 2012, the date on which the defence was lodged.

               3.

               Mr Mateo Pérez shall bear his own costs arising before 14 March 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 27.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-240/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Non-transposition of Directives 89/336/EEC and 92/31/EEC - Electromagnetic compatibility)

text:
14 . 10 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 268/9
Mary Connell and Margaret Nicholas on the interpretation               persons and to members of their families moving within the
of Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of              Community, as amended and updated by Council
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( OJ No L 230, p . 6 ), and
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                  Articles 12 ( 2 ) and 46a of that Regulation, as amended by
matters of social security ( OJ No L 6 , p . 24 ) — the Court          Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 ( OJ No L 136 , p . 7 )
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler                     — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: P. Jann,
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn,            President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur )
C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                 and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 ,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              in which it rules :
11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
                                                                       a retirement pension granted under the legislation of one
where, pursuant to Article 7 ( 1 ) (a) of Council Directive            Member State, on the basis of periods of insurance
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive                        personally completed in that State by the person concerned,
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men             and a retirement pension obtained under the legislation of
and women in matters ofsocial security, a Member State has             another Member State by that person as a divorcee, on the
set the pensionable age for women at 60 and that for men at            basis of periods of insurance completed by that person's
65, that provision also allows it, first, to provide that the          former spouse, are not benefits of the same kind within the
rate of invalidity pension payable to persons becoming                 meaning of Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
incapacitated for work before they reach pensionable age is            of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
to be limited to the actual rate of retirement pension from            security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
the age of 60 in the case of women and from the age of 65 in           persons and to members of their families moving within the
the case of men and, second, to reserve entitlement to                 Community, as amended and updated by Council
invalidity allowance, paid in addition to invalidity pension,          Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, and
to those persons who are aged under 55, in the case of                 Articles 12 (2) and 46a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , as
women, and under 60, in the case of men, at the time when              amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
they first become incapacitated for work .                             30 April 1992 .
 (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                     (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber)
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
 in Case C-98/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen ): Christel Schmidt v.                      in   Case   C-240/94 : Commission of the            European
                 Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( ] )                                        Communities v. Ireland (*)
  (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security —                      (Failure to fulfil obligations — Non-transposition of
 National rules against overlapping — Benefits of the same              Directives 89/336/EEC and 92/31/EEC — Electromagnetic
                                 kind)                                                            compatibility)
                            ( 95/C 268/18 )                                                       ( 95/C 268/ 19 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                        (Language of the case: English)
  In Case C-98/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         In    Case   C-240/94 :      Commission    of the   European
  the EC Treaty by the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen                        Communities (agents: Thomas F. Cusack and David
  ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Mclntyre) against Ireland ( agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
  pending before that court between Christel Schmidt and                 application for a declaration that, by omitting to bring into
  Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen on the interpretation of                   force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
  Articles 12 ( 2 ) and 46 of Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/71 of            necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of
  the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social               3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
  security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                 Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/10           PEN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
 ( OJ No L 139, p . 19 ), and Council Directive 92/31/EEC               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
amending Directive 89/336/EEC ( OJ No L 126, p. 11 ),                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1 )           measures needed to comply with Council Directive
and Article 2 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned directives and                    91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty — the Courth ( Fifth Chamber),                 the laws of the Member States concerning
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.                       telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L.                     mutual recognition of their conformity, the Hellenic
Sévon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
R. Grass , for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       Treaty;
 11 August 1995 , in which it:
                                                                       2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 1 . declares that, by omitting to bring into force the laws,          (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
     1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and
     Council Directive 92/31 /EEC of 28 April 1992
     amending Directive 89/336/EEC, Ireland has failed to             Action brought on 2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
     fulfil its obligations under Article 12 (1 ) and Article 2 (1 )                     the European Parliament
     of the abovementioned directives and Article 1 89 of the                                 ( Case C-228/95 )
     EC Treaty;
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/21 )
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                    2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, represented by Giancarlo
                                                                      Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar ( Italy ), with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux .
                                                                      The applicant claims inter alia that the Court should annul
                                                                      the notice entitled ' Call for nominations for the office of
                                                                      Ombudsman' ( ! ), and all acts connected with it or adopted
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                as a consequence .
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995                             By order of 1 1 July 1995, pursuant to Article 47 of the EC
                                                                      Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court referred that action
in Case C-260/94 : Commission of the European                         to the Court of First Instance .
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           C ) OJ No C 127, 23 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 268/20 )
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,
In Case C-260/94: Commission of the European                          by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P.
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic (agents : Panagiotis                                  Tobacco Board )
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a
                                                                                ( Case C-244/95 )
declaration that, by failing to adopt, and alternatively by
failing to notify to the Commission, within the periods                                            95/C 268/22 )
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
measures needed to comply with Council Directive                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the              European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications               Court of First Instance, Athens, of 24 March 1995 , which
terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of               was received at the Court Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a
their conformity ( OJ No L 128 , p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic        preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A. E. v. Ethnikos
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —            Organismos Kapnou on the validity of Commission
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( x ) inasmuch as it concerns
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini             the agricultural conversion rates to be applied to the
( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O.           premium for tobacco from the 1992 and previous harvests
Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              which was taken out of supervision from 1 July 1993 and
judgment on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of which is           subsequently. Doubt is cast on the validity of Regulation
as follows :                                                           ( EEC ) No 3477/93 on the following grounds :


title: Case C-538/09: Action brought on 21 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/23

         Action brought on 21 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-538/09)
   2010/C 51/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, as Belgian legislation does not require an appropriate environmental impact study for certain activities when those activities may affect a Natura 2000 site and as the Kingdom of Belgium has made certain activities subject to a declaratory scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1),

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission relies on a single plea in law in support of its action alleging that Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (the ‘Habitats’ Directive) has been transposed incorrectly.
   In that regard, the applicant submits that that provision requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site be subject to an appropriate environmental impact study. The Belgian legislation does not comply with Community law in so far as it does not require such an impact study as a matter of course and provides for a mere declaratory scheme in respect of certain activities which may affect a Natura 2000 site.
   That is true, inter alia, of all the plans or projects which are not subject to an environmental permit in the Walloon Region.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-470/11: Action brought on 1 September 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/23

         Action brought on 1 September 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case T-470/11)
   2011/C 319/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie) (represented by: A. Noël-Baron and É. Morgan de Rivery, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, declare invalid the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 in their entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, reduce the amount of the sum claimed from the applicants in the Commission’s letter BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 or at the very least annul the late-payment interest in the amount of EUR 31 312 114,58 imposed on Elf Aquitaine, for which Total is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 19 191 296,03;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and breached its obligations by failing, in their regard, to draw the consequences from the judgment of the General Court in Case T-217/06 Arkema France and Others v Commission [2011] ECR II-0000, by which the fine imposed on the appellants’ subsidiaries in Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates was reduced. Inter alia, the appellants submit that:

               —

               they should, as parent companies held responsible as such for the cartel, also benefit from the reduction in the fine imposed on their subsidiaries, despite the fact that their own action brought against that decision was dismissed by the judgment of the General Court in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

               —

               by the payment made by Arkema SA of the full amount of the fine imposed on the appellants and their subsidiaries by the decision in Case COMP/F/38.645, the Commission received what was due to it and consequently can no longer claim anything from the appellants.


title: Case T-335/17: Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/59

         Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe v Commission
   (Case T-335/17)
   (2017/C 239/71)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Help — Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe e.V. (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: V. Jungkind and P. Cramer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 21 March 2017 (Ares(2017)1515573) by which a partial amount of the funding for the assistance project Food Security Promotion for very food insecure farming households in Zimbabwe (ECHO/ZWE/BUD/2009/02002) totalling EUR 643 627,72 was to be recovered as well as the payment request based thereupon of 7 April 2017 (No 3241705513) by which the defendant demanded the payment of the first instalment totalling EUR 321 813,86; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law: The approach complained about by the defendant is not an infringement of substantive law

                           —

                           The applicant’s action, of which the defendant complains, in the award of two contracts for the delivery of agricultural goods did not infringe binding substantive law requirements for the organisation of calls to tender in the field of humanitarian projects. In particular, it was in conformity with the mandatory procurement principles under Article 184(1) of the Implementing Rules relating to the EU Financial Regulation 2009 and Article 2(3) of the Rules and Procedures in Annex IV to the Framework Partnership Agreement on the EU’s cooperation with Non-Governmental Organisations in the field of humanitarian assistance of 2008.

                           —

                           The action complained of moreover does not infringe the documentation requirement under Article 23(4) of the general rules laid down in Annex III to the Framework Partnership Agreement.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No other grounds for the recovery

                           —

                           There are also no other grounds for a recovery of the financial assistance. In particular, the undertaking chosen by the applicant delivered the ordered goods on time, in full and of appropriate quality. The applicant moreover carried out the assistance project successfully, which was confirmed by, in total, four independent reviews by third parties.

                           —

                           There was no criminal conduct on the part of the applicant’s staff. The Staatsanwaltschaft Bonn (Public Prosecutor's Office, Bonn, Germany) did not initiate a criminal investigation as a criminal offence was not suspected.

               3.

               Third plea in law (in the alternative): Failure to exercise discretion and disproportionality

                           —

                           The decision on the recovery of the financial assistance which has been awarded was taken by the defendant on the erroneous assumption that it was subject to a binding recommendation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the recovery. This is a failure to exercise discretion on the part of the defendant with the result that the recovery is unlawful.

                           —

                           The recovery of the total partial sum of EUR 643 627,27 is, moreover, unlawful due to the infringement of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. It goes beyond what is necessary to protect the financial budget and, in particular in the light of the assistance project being successfully carried out, would not be proportionate to the applicant’s burden.


title: Cases T-494/08 to T-500/08 and T-509/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010 — Ryanair v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to procedures for reviewing State aid — Implied refusals of access — Express refusals of access — Exception concerning protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Duty to carry out a concrete, individual examination)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2010 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Cases T-494/08 to T-500/08 and T-509/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to procedures for reviewing State aid - Implied refusals of access - Express refusals of access - Exception concerning protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Duty to carry out a concrete, individual examination)
   2011/C 30/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment of the Commission’s implied decisions refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to procedures for reviewing State aid allegedly granted to the applicant by the operators of the airports of Aarhus (Denmark) (Case T-494/08), Alghero (Italy) (Case T-495/08), Berlin-Schönefeld (Germany) (Case T-496/08), Frankfurt-Hahn (Germany) (Case T-497/08), Lübeck-Blankensee (Germany) (Case T-498/08), Pau-Béarn (France) (Case T-499/08), Tampere-Pirkkala (Finland) (Case T-500/08) and Bratislava (Slovakia) (Case T-509/08), and, in the alternative, applications for annulment of the subsequent express decisions refusing access to those documents

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Cases T-494/08, T-495/08, T-496/08, T-497/08, T-498/08, T-499/08, T-500/08 and T-509/08 to be joined for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2.

               Declares the actions inadmissible in so far as they have been brought against the implied decisions to refuse access in Cases T-494/08, T-495/08, T-499/08, T-500/08 and T-509/08;

               3.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions in Cases T-496/08, T-497/08 and T-498/08 in so far as they have been brought against the implied decisions to refuse access;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the actions;

               5.

               Orders Ryanair Ltd to pay the costs in Cases T-494/08, T-495/08, T-499/08, T-500/08 and T-509/08;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Cases T-496/08, T-497/08 and T-498/08 and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd in those cases.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-190/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam): ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam (Sixth VAT Directive - Leasing company supplying passenger cars - Place where the supplier has established its business - Fixed establishment)

text:
  C 271 /4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 9 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Ireland against the
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-239/97)
                            of 17 July 1997
                                                                                ( 97/C 271/06 )
  in Case C-190/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
  the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam ): ARO Lease BV v.
  Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen,
                             Amsterdam 0 )                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
  (Sixth VAT Directive — Leasing company supplying                       the European Communities on 30 June 1997 by Ireland,
 passenger cars — Place where the supplier has established               represented by Mr Michael A. Buckley, Chief State
              its business — Fixed establishment)                        Solicitor, Agent for Ireland, assisted by Mr Paul Gallagher,
                             ( 97/C 271 /05 )                            SC, of the Bar of Ireland, and Ms Niamh Hyland, BL, of
                                                                         the Bar of Ireland, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Embassy of Ireland, 28, route d'Arlon.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         — annul Commission Decision C(97) 693 of 16 April
                                                                             1997 concerning the reduction of assistance from the
 In Case C-190/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                 European Regional Development Fund (hereafter
 of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, for                     'ERDF') to the operational programme for Tourism in
 a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                      Ireland 1989—1993 within the Community support
 that court between ARO Lease BV and Inspecteur der                          framework for structural assistance under Objective 1
 Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen te Amsterdam — on                       in Ireland for the period 1989—1993 and amending
 the interpretation of Article 9 ( 1 ) of Sixth Council                      Decision C(89 ) 2258/7 of 21 December 1989 as last
 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                  amended by C(93 ) 3769 of 17 December 1993 ,
 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 ) — the             — order the Commission to pay the costs of this
 Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                        application.
 President of Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris
 ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; N.
Fennelly, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                        Applicable law
 On a proper construction of Article 9 (1 ) of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              The decision under which the monies for the project at the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                 Burren National Park and the Wicklow National Park
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                   were awarded was Decision C(89 ) 2258/7 of 21 December
uniform basis of assessment, a leasing company                           1989 as last amended by Decision C(93 ) 3769 of
established in one Member State does not supply services                17 December 1993 . The applicant is seeking the
from a fixed establishment in another Member State if it                annulment of the Commission decision of 16 April 1997
makes passenger cars available in the second State under                which seeks to amend this decision. The applicant submits
leasing agreements to customers established there, if its               that it is clear that the relevant law applicable to the
customers have entered into contact with it through self               present annulment action is Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/
employed intermediaries established in the second State, if             88 ( M.
they have chosen their cars from dealers established in the
second State, if the leasing company has acquired the cars
in the second State, in which they are registered, and has              Substance
made them available to its customers under leasing
agreements drawn up and signed at its main place of
business, and if the customers bear maintenance costs and               i)  Lack of a significant change
pay road tax in the second State, but the leasing company
does not have an office or any premises on which to store
the cars there.                                                             The applicant submits that in view of the fact that the
                                                                            approval given by the sub-committee for Sub
(') OJ C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                              Programmes 1 and 2 of the Tourism Operational
                                                                            Programme was given in general terms to 'the creation
                                                                            of a national park' and that the work done at the
                                                                            Burren National Park is part of the creation of a