title: Case T-411/09: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2011 — Terezakis v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Partial refusal of access — Contested act replaced in the course of the proceedings — Refusal to amend the claims — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Order of the General Court of 12 January 2011 — Terezakis v Commission
   (Case T-411/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Partial refusal of access - Contested act replaced in the course of the proceedings - Refusal to amend the claims - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 63/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially B. Lombart, then P. Synoikis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and C. ten Dam, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2009 refusing the applicant access to some parts of, and the annexes to, certain letters exchanged between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Greek Ministry of Finance regarding tax irregularities in connection with the construction of Spata airport at Athens (Greece)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-220/07: Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/40

         Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-220/07)
   (2007/C 199/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions (Beuvillers, France) (represented by: D. Schönberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the Commission to be liable non-contractually for the infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights under Council Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of 20 March 1972;

               —

               declare the Commission to be liable non-contractually for the infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights since the coming into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of the heads of claim referred to above, the sum of EUR 50 723 808,39, which failing any other amount, including a higher one, to be certified by an expert, together with default interest on that sum from the date of the judgment to be delivered until the date of actual payment, at the rate of 8 % per year;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this application, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability seeking to obtain reparation for the damage allegedly suffered by it following the adoption by the Commission of Decision 89/524/EEC of 7 September 1989 on a dispute between Luxembourg and France on the establishment of a special regular passenger service between these two States (1), which was the subject of an action for annulment brought by the applicant and dismissed by the Court by judgment of 16 April 1991, delivered in Case C-354/89 Schiocchet v Commission (2), and following the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (3).
   In its application, the applicant claims that by adopting the measures in question the Community institutions have infringed its fundamental rights by regularising an unlawful situation involving its competitors on the market for bus transport between Luxembourg and France, who were carrying on their activities without prior authorisation.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 272, p. 18.

      (2)  [1991] ECR I-1775.

      (3)  OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1.


title: Case C-50/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 3 February 2014 — CASTA and Others v A.S.L. di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4) and Regione Piemonte

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 3 February 2014 — CASTA and Others v A.S.L. di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4) and Regione Piemonte
   (Case C-50/14)
   2014/C 93/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Consorzio Artigiano Servizio Taxi e Autonoleggio (CASTA), Galati Lucimorto Roberto — Autonoleggio Galati, Seren Bernardone Guido — Autonoleggio Seren Guido

      Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Ciriè, Chivasso e Ivrea (ASL TO4), Regione Piemonte

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does European Union public procurement law — in the case under examination, concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, equal treatment, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation under which contracts for the provision of ambulance and health-related transport services may be awarded directly to voluntary organisations organised predominantly on the basis of unpaid work and in return for genuine reimbursement of costs?

               2.

               If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must there be a prior comparison of tenders from several homogeneous (and possibly also Community) operators and recipients of a direct award in order to limit the risk of exposure to inefficient and unreasonable costs, and must the national law under which direct awards are permitted accordingly be construed to that effect?

               3.

               If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must voluntary organisations which receive direct awards be subject to precise percentage limits on parallel access to the market, and must the provision of national law under which the commercial activity of those organisations has to be marginal accordingly be construed to that effect?


title: Case C-459/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/17

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Case C-459/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10 and, in particular, in Case T-428/10, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC v Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when it held that Tycsa PSC formed an economic unit with MRT since Trenzas y Cables, the company that held a 100 % shareholding in Tycsa PSC, ceased to exist and MRT is not the successor of Trenzas y Cables.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law in failing to apply the appropriate legal standard and failed to state reasons in that it did not explain why the sworn statements of the managing directors of Tycsa PSC were insufficient as legally relevant evidence concerning the existence of a single economic unit.

               3.

               The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the impressions of competitors, in finding that those impressions constituted an additional indication, and were therefore legally relevant, in demonstrating the existence of an economic unit comprised of Tycsa PSC, GSW and the other companies owned by the latter.

               4.

               The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the overlaps of staff between Tycsa PSC, GSW and the companies owned by the latter, by considering that those overlaps constituted an additional indication, and were therefore legally relevant, in demonstrating that those companies formed an economic unit.

               5.

               The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the meeting held between Trenzas y Cables and a competitor, in treating that meeting as an additional indication in order to demonstrate that Tycsa PSC formed part of an economic unit, of which GSW was the parent company.

               6.

               The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, infringed its obligations as regards judicial review, by rejecting the appellant’s argument that it did not form part of an economic unit comprised of Trenzas y Cables and GSW, without even assessing the evidence adduced in order to rebut the alleged presumption of decisive influence.

               7.

               The General Court committed an error of law consisting in infringing the appellant’s rights of defence by finding that, inasmuch as the Commission based its assessment of the appellant’s ability to pay on facts adduced and known by the latter, the Commission had respected the appellant’s right to be heard.

               8.

               The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence and, in any event, did not exercise its powers of judicial review in accordance with law, erred in law by failing to fulfil its duty to state reasons and, lastly, the General Court erred in law by distorting the facts and the evidence relating to the possibility of the appellant obtaining external financing.

               9.

               The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, failed to fulfil its duty to exercise its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, by considering that the appellant had not provided the Commission with the information necessary to evaluate the assets of its shareholders. In addition, the General Court failed to state reasons since it did not explain why the Deloitte reports relied on by Tycsa PSC lacked evidential value.


15.6.2002             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 144/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/00 (1)             from the register of Case C-462/00: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                       (2002/C 144/59)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/63)
                                                                  By order of 9 January 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-235/01: Commission of the
       Removal from the register of Case C-408/00 (1)             European Communities v Italian Republic.
                       (2002/C 144/60)                            (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 22 February 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-408/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      Removal from the register of Case C-242/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/64)
                                                                  By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-242/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/00 (1)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                       (2002/C 144/61)
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and
                                                                                C-270/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/65)
                                                                  By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01
                                                                  (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e
       Removal from the register of Case C-462/00 (1)
                                                                  Penale di L’Aquila): Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case
                                                                  C-269/01) and Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case
                       (2002/C 144/62)                            C-270/01).
                                                                  (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 1998 in Case C-7/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Article 86 of the EC Treaty - Abuse of a dominant position - Refusal of a media undertaking holding a dominant position in the territory of a Member State to include a rival daily newspaper of another undertaking in the same Member State in its newspaper home-delivery scheme)

text:
C 20/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
In so far as he has available a job with the same employer,          State and operates the only nationwide newspaper
a Turkish national in that situation is thus entitled to             home-delivery scheme in that Member State to allow the
demand the renewal of his residence permit in the host               publisher of a rival newspaper, which by reason of its
Member State, even if, pursuant to the legislation of that           small circulation is unable either alone or in cooperation
Member State, the activity pursued by him was restricted             with other publishers to set up and operate its own
to a limited group of persons, was intended to facilitate            home-delivery scheme in economically reasonable
their integration into working life and was financed by              conditions, to have access to that scheme for appropriate
public funds.                                                        remuneration does not constitute the abuse of a dominant
                                                                     position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty.
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                    of 26 November 1998
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-7/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Oscar Bronner GmbH &                                           (Second Chamber)
Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag
GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebs-                                             of 26 November 1998
gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint
          Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                     in Case C-370/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Article 86 of the EC Treaty Ð Abuse of a dominant                   the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis): Covita AVE v. Elliniko
position Ð Refusal of a media undertaking holding a                                     Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
dominant position in the territory of a Member State to
include a rival daily newspaper of another undertaking in            (Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 Ð Countervailing charge
the same Member State in its newspaper home-delivery                 on cherries originating in Bulgaria Ð Entry in the
                            scheme)                                              accounts Ð Post-clearance recovery)
                        (1999/C 20/12)                                                        (1999/C 20/13)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-7/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs-
und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint
Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and                       In Case C-370/96, reference to the Court under Article 177
Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG Ð for a                 of the EC Treaty by the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis
preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 86 of            (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                  pending before that court between Covita AVE and
of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J. L.                Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) Ð on the interpretation of
Murray, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and                  Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate-General: F. G. Jacobs;               2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or
Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a          export duties (OJ L 175, 12.7.1979, p. 1), Article 5(2) of
judgment on 26 November 1998, in which it has ruled:                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on
                                                                     the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export
                                                                     duties which have not been required of the person liable
The refusal by a press undertaking which holds a very                for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
large share of the daily newspaper market in a Member                involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ L 197,


title: Case C-273/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — Republic of Poland v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Council Decision 2004/281/EC — Common agricultural policy — Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union — Adaptation — Infringement of principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — Republic of Poland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-273/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Council Decision 2004/281/EC - Common agricultural policy - Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union - Adaptation - Infringement of principle of non-discrimination)
   (2007/C 315/03)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Nowakowski, E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, K. Rokicka and I. Niemirka, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by A. Zikmane and E. Balode-Buraka, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), Republic of Hungary (represented by P. Gottfried and R. Somssich, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Ruggeri Laderchi, K. Zieleśkiewicz and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. van Rijn, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Article 1(5) of Council Decision 2004/281/EC of 22 March 2004 adapting the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, following the reform of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2004 L 93, p. 1) — Infringement of the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and good faith
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 25.9.2004.


title: Case T-168/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Arkema against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/28

         Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Arkema against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-168/05)
   (2005/C 171/47)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Arkema, having its registered office in Paris, represented by Michel Debroux, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(d), 2(c) and 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005, in so far as they concern Elf Aquitaine and impose a fine on it, because of errors of law and an infringement of essential procedural requirements and, consequently, amend Article 2(c) and (d) of the decision in so far as it imposed an excessive fine on Arkema and determine a lesser amount;

               —

               or, in the alternative, amend Article 2(c) and (d) of the decision in so far as it imposed an excessive fine on Arkema and on Elf Aquitaine and reduce the amount of the fine;

               —

               in both alternatives, order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission imposed first, on the applicant and its parent company, Elf Aquitaine SA, jointly and severally, and second, on the applicant alone, fines of EUR 45 000 000 and EUR 13 500 000 respectively for their involvement along with ten other undertakings in a cartel in the Monochloroacetic acid sector.
   In support of its action the applicant submits, first, that the Commission made several errors in law in attributing the applicant's practices, the materiality and classification of which are not disputed, to Elf Aquitaine. The Commission thus misinterpreted the rules governing a parent company's liability for practices carried out by a subsidiary in making a de facto irrebuttable presumption of accountability deriving from its majority shareholding in its subsidiary and consequently, in not showing how the parent company was actually involved in the practices in question. According to the applicant, this irrebuttable presumption infringes the principle of legal and commercial autonomy of the subsidiary, the principle of personal liability for breaches of competition law and the principle of non-discrimination between undertakings on the basis of their legal organisation. Moreover, the applicant claims that the Commission did not respect the essential procedural requirements in so far as no reasons were given at all for applying the irrebuttable presumption.
   Second, the applicant submits that the fine imposed was excessive, disproportionate and discriminatory. In support of this submission it pleads infringement of the proportionality principle in determining the initial amount of the fine, in determining the factor applied to make the fine a sufficient deterrent and in determining the multiplying factor based on the duration of the breach.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that should Elf Aquitaine not be exonerated, its pleas regarding infringement of the proportionality principle are still well-founded. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission took Arkema's turnover into account twice in its method of calculation, thus imposing a double penalty for the same fact.


1.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Removal from the Register of Cases T-31/97 to T-36/97,
                                                                        T-45/97, T-78/97, T-79/97, T-82/97, T-88/97 to T-98/97,
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 3 August        T-100/97 to T-105/97, T-114/97 to T-120/97, T-129/97,
      2000 inasmuch as it does not acknowledge that the                 T-133/97, T-135/97 to T-138/97, T-150/97 to T-153/97,
      applicant’s administrative status is irregular and refuses        T-157/97, T-158/97, T-174/97, T-180/97, T-208/97 and
      to compensate him for material and non-material damage                                       T-209/97 (1)
      suffered by him
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                      (2001/C 245/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges the decision to bring to a close the           By order of 12 June 2001, the President of the Court of First
administrative inquiry concerning the duties carried out by the         Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
applicant, inasmuch as that decision rejects his request for a          removal from the Register of Cases T-31/97 to T-36/97,
finding that his administrative status is irregular and to be           T-45/97, T-78/97, T-79/97, T-82/97, T-88/97 to T-98/97,
compensated for material and non-material damage suffered               T-100/97 to T-105/97, T-114/97 to T-120/97, T-129/97,
by him. That inquiry shows that the arrangements had broken             T-133/97, T-135/97 to T-138/97, T-150/97 to T-153/97,
down both as to the allocation and the execution of tasks               T-157/97, T-158/97, T-174/97, T-180/97, T-208/97 and
entrusted to the applicant.                                             T-209/97, Francisco Fernandez Ruiz and Others v Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.97, C 142 of 10.5.97, C 166 of 31.5.97, C 181
—     breach of the obligation to provide reasons;                          of 14.6.97, C 199 of 28.6.97, C 212 of 12.7.97, C 228 of
                                                                            26.7.97, C 271 of 6.9.97 et C 7 of 10.1.98.
—     manifest error of assessment;
—     breach of the principle of sound administration;
—     breach of the rights of the defence.
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-190/99 (1)
       Removal from the Register of Case T-258/93 (1)                                            (2001/C 245/52)
                        (2001/C 245/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 4 April 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 14 May 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber            (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the            European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                   Register of Case T-190/99, Sniace S.A. v Commission of the
Register of Case T-258/93, H&R Ecroyd Limited v Council                 European Communities.
of the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
(1) OJ C 165 of 2.7.92.


title: Case T-462/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Pilkington Group v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — European automotive glass market — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of data allegedly covered by business secrecy — Obligation to state reasons — Confidentiality — Obligation of professional secrecy — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Pilkington Group v Commission
   (Case T-462/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative procedure - European automotive glass market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of data allegedly covered by business secrecy - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Obligation of professional secrecy - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 302/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, and C. Puech Baron, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass), in so far as it relates to the request by Pilkington Group concerning recital 115 of Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Pilkington Group to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-549/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/15

         Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
   (Case T-549/14)
   2014/C 351/17
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Castello’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 6 819 973

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Numerous earlier Community and national trade marks containing, inter alia, the verbal element ‘Castelló’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-278/14: Action brought on 27 April 2014 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (Belt)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/34

         Action brought on 27 April 2014 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (Belt)
   (Case T-278/14)
   2014/C 253/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               put the proceedings back to the stage at which the CD containing invoices of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity was served on the applicant and annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2014 in Case R 855/2012-3; in the alternative,

               —

               put the proceedings back to just before the Board of Appeal gave its decision, annulling the contested decision and staying the proceedings until the court proceedings brought by the holder of that Community design against international trade mark No 6 08  499 are disposed of; in the alternative,

               —

               grant the present application, declaring that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design has not proved the use of its trade mark and therefore dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity on that ground; in the alternative,

               —

               grant the application, dismissing the invalidity proceedings in the light of the arguments set out above;

               —

               together with all of the above, expressly order the defendant and any other party to the proceedings to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: representation of a belt with the word element ‘DIESEL’ — Registered Community design No 1044150-0003
   Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant
   Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Diesel SpA

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National and Community word mark ‘DIESEL’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24 and 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               failure to provide the applicant with the CD containing the invoices;

               —

               failure to stay the proceedings;

               —

               the applicant holds Spanish trade mark No 2 5 85  042‘S.D.D. SUPER DIESEL DAIREK’;

               —

               the remaining proof of use submitted by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is not sufficient;

               —

               the differences between the signs.


title: Case C-242/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by the Land Hessen against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/30

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by the Land Hessen against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-242/15 P)
   (2015/C 236/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész, A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 in so far as it annulled Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH;

               —

               dismiss the action in its entirety;

               —

               order Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the appellant during the proceedings before the General Court and the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal:

               1.

               By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in its assessment of the Commission’s margin of discretion. The determination of the value of aid in the form of guarantees is an economically complex issue, for the purposes of which the Commission is granted a margin of discretion. The Commission exercised that margin of discretion in accordance with its long established practice so as to calculate the value of aid in the form of guarantees from German Federal States in accordance with the detailed rules of the German authorities at 0,5 % of the guarantee value. The subsequent publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice could in no way alter that finding.

               2.

               In addition, the General Court erred (second ground of appeal) in so far as the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU is an objective concept, which may not be affected by Commission authorisation. The value of aid in the form of a guarantee may not be altered by the authorisation of the aid scheme. That is the case in particular with respect to de-minimis aid, since the latter does not come within the scope of Article 107 TFEU and consequently cannot be subject to a Commission decision approving an aid scheme.

               3.

               By its third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an infringement of the principle of equality. The calculation of the value of the aid in the form of guarantees, whether based on approved or non-approved aid schemes, concerns factually identical situations, which were treated differently without objective justification. In addition, the General Court erred in law by making a distinction, in the application of the 0,5 % method, between guarantees which were granted before publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice and those granted after that publication. The Commission’s practice vis-à-vis Germany is however in the present case more specific than the general Guarantee Notice, and the calculation method at issue in the present case would moreover be admissible were it to be assessed in accordance with the 2000 Guarantee Notice.

               4.

               Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an error of law in the application of the fundamental principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations. Of particular relevance is the expectation of the Land Hessen that the Commission accept the 0,5 % method in its consistent decision practice, a fact which it in addition expressly confirmed in its 1998 Notice. In addition, during its examination of the guarantee guidelines of the Land Hessen, it did not contest the 0,5 % method.


               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/1

         (2008/C 171/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 142, 7.6.2008

      OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

      OJ C 116, 9.5.2008

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

      OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

      OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-55/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Vodafone Omnitel NV

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Vodafone Omnitel NV
   (Case C-55/17)
   (2017/C 239/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Respondent: Vodafone Omnitel NV

      Questions referred
       (1)

               1.

               Do Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national implementing provisions (namely: Articles 24 and 25 respectively of the Consumer Code) which considers that the conduct of a mobile telephone operator in failing to provide information regarding the pre-loading on to SIM cards of specific telephony services (that is, answering or internet-enabling services) may be classified as ‘undue influence’ and, therefore, as an ‘aggressive commercial practice’ likely ‘significantly’ to curtail the average consumer’s freedom of choice or of action, particularly in circumstances in which no further different material conduct is imputed to that mobile telephone operator?

               2.

               Can point 29 of Annex I of Directive 2005/29/EC (…) be interpreted as meaning that there is an ‘unsolicited supply’ where a mobile telephone operator asks its customer to pay for telephone answering or internet-enabling services, and does so in a situation with the following features:

                           —

                           at the time when the mobile phone contract was entered into, the telephone operator did not properly inform the consumer that the answering and internet-enabling services were pre-loaded on to the SIM card, with the result that those services could potentially be used by the consumer without specifically configuring them;

                           —

                           in order actually to make use of such services, the consumer must, however, perform the necessary procedures (for instance, dial the number of the answering service or activate the commands that enable internet access);

                           —

                           there is no complaint about the technical and operational processes whereby the services are actually used by the consumer, nor about the information relating to those processes and the actual cost of the services, the sole complaint against the operator being the abovementioned failure to provide the information that the services were pre-loaded on to the SIM card?

               3.

               Does the raison d’être of the ‘general’ Directive 2005/29/EC as the ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and recital 10 in the preamble and Article 3(4) of that directive as well, preclude national rules which bring within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directive 2002/22/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the authority empowered to penalise violations of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper/unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

               4.

               Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general system and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

               5.

               Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific sectoral aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices in relation to the particular features of the sector, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws (‘Normenkollision’) in a specific case?

               6.

               Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

               7.

               Do the speciality principle, established in recital 10 in the preamble and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC and Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2002/22/EC, Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2002/21/EC (4) as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/59/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I of Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even when there are sectoral rules adopted to protect consumers and based on provisions of EU law, that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper practices’?

      (1)  N.B. The progressive numbering of the questions used here differs from that used in the order for reference, in which there were two groups of questions not numbered consecutively.

      (2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (3)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

      (4)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).


title: Case C-617/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 97(1) — International jurisdiction — Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised — Definition of ‘establishment’)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV
   (Case C-617/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 97(1) - International jurisdiction - Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised - Definition of ‘establishment’))
   (2017/C 239/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

      Defendant: Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in a Member State, of a parent body that has no seat in the European Union is an ‘establishment’, within the meaning of that provision, of that parent body if the subsidiary is a centre of operations which, in the Member State where it is located, has a certain real and stable presence from which commercial activity is pursued, and has the appearance of permanency to the outside world, such as an extension of the parent body.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-313/17 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 2017 by George Haswani against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-231/15 Haswani v Council

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/41

         Appeal brought on 26 May 2017 by George Haswani against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-231/15 Haswani v Council
   (Case C-313/17 P)
   (2017/C 239/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraphs 39 to 47 of the judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 (Case T-231/15), which declare the application for annulment of Council Decision (PESC) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016, amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), to be inadmissible, and annul provisions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the operative part of that judgment;

               —

               consequently, order that Mr George Haswani’s name be removed from the annexes to the above-mentioned acts;

               —

               disposing of the case, annul Decision 2015/1836 (3) and Implementing Regulation 2015/1828 (4);

               —

               disposing of the case, order the Council to pay EUR 700 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss suffered;

               —

               set aside provisions 4 and 5 of the operative part and paragraphs 91 to 93 of the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders Mr George Haswani to bear two thirds of the costs incurred by the Council as well as the costs related to his own applications;

               —

               order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs in accordance with subparagraph 4 of Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that, in paragraphs 39 to 47 of its judgment, the General Court declares that, in the light of the requirements of Article 86(4) of its Rules of Procedure, the forms of order seeking the annulment of Decision 2016/850 and of Implementing Regulation 2016/840, submitted by Mr Haswani in his second statement of modification, are inadmissible. That error of law is particularly noticeable in paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal.
   The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that, in paragraphs 39 to 47 of its judgment — in particular paragraph 47 — the General Court held that, where the requirements referred to in Article 86(4) of its Rules of Procedure are omitted, it could reject as inadmissible the forms of order sought in the statement of modification, without even considering whether or not the applicant had received a request for rectification of the defects from the Registrar.
   The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in paragraphs 39 to 47 of the judgment under appeal, and more specifically in paragraph 46, in that the General Court considered that it was necessary for Mr Haswani to include in his statement of modification, in addition to the modified forms of order sought, a new presentation of the modified pleas in law.
   Fourth, in the context of its power of dispose of the case, the Court can only find that the decision and the 2015 Implementing Regulation (2015/1836 and 2015/1828) are unlawful, according to which funds and economic resources belonging to influential businessmen and women carrying out their activities in Syria are frozen.

      (1)  OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125.

      (2)  OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30.

      (3)  OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75.

      (4)  OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1.


title: Case T-329/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/27

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA
   (Case T-329/16)
   (2016/C 314/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency,

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the Contested Acts; and

               —

               order the European Commission and the EMA to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of an act of the European Commission removing ‘elotuzumab’ from the Union Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or a possible act of the European Commission or the European Medicines Agency determining that the orphan designation criteria for ‘elotuzumab’ were not met any more at the time of marketing authorisation of the medicinal product ‘Empliciti’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts violate Article 5 (12) (b) of the Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1), in conjunction with the principle of proportionality:

                           —

                           First, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, a medicinal product that received a marketing authorisation after the application for marketing authorisation for the orphan medicine, cannot be taken into account under Article 3 (b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000.

                           —

                           Second, pursuant to Article 5(12) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the orphan designation can only be withdrawn when the criteria of Article 3 Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 are no longer met.

                           —

                           Third, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the EMA and the Commission must apply a standard of proof that supports the objective of the Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, in conjunction with Article 5(8) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as there is no formal Commission decision.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)


title: Case C-336/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by order of that court of 13 May 1999 in the case of Tumedei SpA against Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento

text:
C 333/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
     legislation and to prosecute any offenders, both for 1988              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     and 1990. The authorities did not institute any proceedings
     against those who continued to fish after the prohibition
     was imposed, even though that measure was particularly                 (a) annul the following decisions adopted on 1 July 1999 by
     belated.                                                                   the Commission of the European Communities:
(1) OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1.                                                 — Decision 1999/503/EC (notified under document
(2) OJ L 207 of 29.7.1987, p. 1.                                                     number C(1999) 1771) (1), inasmuch as it establishes a
                                                                                population ceiling of 7 402 000 inhabitants for Italy
                                                                                under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the
                                                                                period 2000 to 2006;
                                                                                — Decision 1999/504/EC (notified under document
                                                                                number C(1999) 1772) (2), inasmuch as it fixes at
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                                2 145 million euro (at 1999 prices) the indicative
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                                 allocation for Italy of the commitment appropriations
order of that court of 13 May 1999 in the case of Tumedei                            for Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the pe-
SpA against Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e                               riod 2000 to 2006;
                        Indirette di Trento
                          (Case C-336/99)                                   (b) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (1999/C 333/38)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-
taria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of                  1. Decision 1999/503/EC does not indicate the method used
First Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 13 May 1999,                          by the Commission to determine the population ceiling. It
received at the Court Registry on 10 September 1999, for a                      is not possible, therefore, to ascertain the logical/legal
preliminary ruling in the case of Tumedei SpA v Centro di                       process which prompted the Commission to determine, in
Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento on the                     relation to Italy, the population ceiling of
following question:                                                             7 402 000 inhabitants, or to check that, when determining
                                                                                the population ceilings, the Commission took into account
Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with                     the matters laid down in Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the                  Council Regulation No 1260/99 (3).
rate of 0,75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets                    The alleged total failure to provide reasons renders
consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by                  Decision 1999/503 null and void, at least as regards the
the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on                    contested part thereof, which concerns the determination
contributions of 1%?                                                            of the population ceiling for Italy.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                            2. In the alternative, it must be concluded that the criterion
                                                                                which the Commission claims to have adopted in order to
                                                                                determine, in relation to Italy, the population ceiling of
                                                                                7 402 000 inhabitants is unlawful, in that it is ultra vires
                                                                                and based on misuse of powers, erroneous assumptions
                                                                                and distortion of the facts.
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Italian
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                        3. As a result of the unlawful determination in
                              munities                                          Decision 1999/503 of the population ceiling for Italy,
                                                                                Decision 1999/504/EC is also unlawful in so far as the
                                                                                latter decision fixes the indicative allocation for Italy in the
                          (Case C-344/99)                                       sum of 2 145 million euro.
                          (1999/C 333/39)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   (1) OJ L 194 of 27.7.1999, p. 58.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                (2) OJ L 194 of 27.7.1999, p. 60.
Communities on 17 September 1999 by the Italian Republic,                   (3) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 1.
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Ivo M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
Marie-Adélaïde.


title: Judgment of the Court 11 July 2002 in Case C-224/98 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège): Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop v Office national de l'emploi (Citizenship of the Union — Principle of non-discrimination — National legislation granting the right to tideover allowances to its nationals only on condition that they have completed their secondary education in an educational establishment in their own Member State — National seeking first employment having completed her secondary education in an educational establishment in another Member State)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 233/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       employment, on the sole ground that that student completed her
                                                                             secondary education in another Member State.
                            11 July 2002
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
in Case C-224/98 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Liège): Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop
                v Office national de l’emploi (1)
(Citizenship of the Union — Principle of non-discrimination
— National legislation granting the right to tideover allow-                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ances to its nationals only on condition that they have
completed their secondary education in an educational estab-                                           (Fifth Chamber)
lishment in their own Member State — National seeking
first employment having completed her secondary education
                                                                                6 June 2002
  in an educational establishment in another Member State)
                                                                             in Case C-133/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
                          (2002/C 233/01)                                               mission of the European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)                           (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
                                                                             — Aid for processing of skimmed milk into casein and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                    caseinates)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/02)
In Case C-224/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal du
travail de Liège (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
proceedings pending before that court between Marie-Nathalie                                    in the European Court Reports)
D’Hoop and Office national de l’emploi on the interpretation
of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68                  In Case C-133/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement                     A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) supported by French Republic
for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition                (Agents: R. Abraham and C. Vasak) v Commission of the
1968 (II), p. 475), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                   European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn, K.-D. Borchardt
Iglesias, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and S. von              and C. van der Hauwaert): Application for partial annulment
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,                    of Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on
A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                       in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                      Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:                             Fund (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it excludes the
                                                                             applicant Member State from Community financing in the
Community law precludes a Member State from refusing to grant the            sum of NLG 39 182 606 by way of aid for the processing of
tideover allowance to one of its nationals, a student seeking her first      skimmed milk into casein and caseinates, the Court (Fifth


title: Case T-365/06: Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Bateaux Mouches v OHIM — Castanet (Bateaux Mouches)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/23

         Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Bateaux Mouches v OHIM — Castanet (Bateaux Mouches)
   (Case T-365/06)
   (2007/C 42/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: SA Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches (Paris, France) (represented by: D. de Leusse, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jean-Noël Castanet (Paris, France)
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               Declare the action by Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1, Castanet v Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches);

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Bateaux Mouches’ for services in Classes 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 336 122

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Jean-Noël Castanet

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for cancellation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) on the grounds that the contested decision wrongly held the applicant's trade mark to be descriptive and without distinctive character and inasmuch as it held that the applicant had not proved that its trade mark had acquired by usage a distinctive character for the services concerned.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-327/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Armamento Li Causi v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/37

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Armamento Li Causi v Commission
   (Case T-327/08)
   (2008/C 272/75)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Armamento Li Causi Snc (Marsala, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-188/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/30

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare)
   (Case T-188/14)
   2014/C 151/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Neuner and S. Walter, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 739/2013-5.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GentleCare’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 522

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-4/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 January 2011 – Federal Republic of Germany v Kaveh Puid

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 January 2011 – Federal Republic of Germany v Kaveh Puid
   (Case C-4/11)
   2011/C 95/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Defendant: Kaveh Puid

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation 343/2003, (1) pursuant to which a Member State is entitled to examine an asylum application made to it which, under Article 3(1) of the regulation, another Member State is responsible for (‘the Member State assuming responsibility’), in derogation from that responsibility (the so-called ‘right to assume responsibility’), to be interpreted as meaning that the duty of a Member State to exercise the right granted to it under that provision to the benefit of asylum-seekers can also be inferred from reasons not directly associated with the asylum-seeker himself or other particularities of an individual case, but which result from a situation in the Member State assuming responsibility which poses a threat to the fundamental rights of asylum-seekers under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’)?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the affirmative:
               Does the case where the Member State assuming responsibility has failed to satisfy in a serious manner and for an uncertain period of time one or several of the requirements laid down in Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18) and Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) provide relevant grounds for a Member State to be required to assume responsibility as a result of the situation in the Member State required to assume responsibility with a view to protecting the fundamental rights in Article 3(1), Article 4, Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

               3.

               If the second question should be answered in the negative:
               Is there a duty on the part of the Member States to exercise their right under the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation 343/2003 in view of the guarantees laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights referred to above at any rate if, in the Member State assuming responsibility, particularly serious deficiencies exist which could fundamentally compromise the procedural guarantees for asylum-seekers or pose a threat to the existence or the physical integrity of the transferred asylum-seeker?

               4.

               If either the second or third question should be answered in the affirmative:
               Does an enforceable personal right on the part of the asylum-seeker to force a Member State to assume responsibility result from the duty of the Member States to exercise their right under the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation 343/2003?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).


title: Case C-418/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Arable crop sector — Clearance of EAGGF accounts — Reliable and operational inspection system — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Flat-rate correction — Retrospective application of the rules relating to checks — Implicit obligations — Principle of proportionality — Legal certainty — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-418/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - EAGGF - Arable crop sector - Clearance of EAGGF accounts - Reliable and operational inspection system - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Flat-rate correction - Retrospective application of the rules relating to checks - Implicit obligations - Principle of proportionality - Legal certainty - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   (2008/C 142/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert and L. Van den Broeck, Agents, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2 % of the expenditure declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-82/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/38

         Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
   (Case T-82/16)
   (2016/C 136/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, A. Alpera Plazas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE EVOLUTION’ — Application for registration No 11 968 138

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 725/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit the application;

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the registration of the EU mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION in all the goods and services it seeks protection;

               —

               order EUIPO and/or the opponent to bear the fees and costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the confronted signs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  24 November 2005  in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (Public service contracts — Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Award criteria — The economically most advantageous tender — Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice — Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice — Decision to apply weighting — Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 24 November 2005
   in Case C-331/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato: ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others (1)

   (Public service contracts - Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC - Award criteria - The economically most advantageous tender - Observance of award criteria set out in the contract documents or the contract notice - Establishment of subheadings for one of the award criteria in the contract documents or the contract notice - Decision to apply weighting - Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency)
   (2006/C 48/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-331/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by Decision of 6 April 2004, received at the Court on 29 July 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and Others v ACTV Venezia SpA and Others — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Article 34 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors must be interpreted as meaning that Community law does not preclude a jury from attaching specific weight to the subheadings of an award criterion which are defined in advance, by dividing among those headings the points awarded for that criterion by the contracting authority when the contract documents or the contract notice were prepared, provided that that decision:

               —

               does not alter the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents or the contract notice;

               —

               does not contain elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation;

               —

               was not adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Case T-132/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/21

         Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-132/13)
   2013/C 123/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Sonja Deweerdt (Rulles, Belgium); Didier Lebrun (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and Margot Lietz (Mensdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors unlawful inasmuch as it has the effect of ensuring the impunity of a Member who is guilty of harassment;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 13 December 2012 not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in order to request it to examine whether Ms S., at that time a Member of the Court of Auditors, no longer fulfilled the requisite conditions or met the obligations arising from her office and, should her term of office have already ended, to deprive her of her right to a pension;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges that Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors is unlawful inasmuch as it ensures the impunity of a Member who is guilty of harassment.

               2.

               The second plea in law relates to the fact that the contested decision is marred by inconsistency, inasmuch as the Court of Auditors expressly acknowledged Ms S.’s shortcomings whilst refusing to refer the matter of Ms S. to the Court of Justice.

               3.

               The third plea in law alleges that there is no relevant reasoning to enable the applicants to assess the merits of the contested decision.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and an abuse of rights, inasmuch as the Court of Auditors examined the expediency of referring the matter of Ms S. to the Court of Justice only a year and a day after the external investigator had submitted the report.


title: Action brought on 2 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-311/95)

text:
No C 315/ 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 11 . 95
      the Treaty: the low production of table wine in the                 Directive 92/50/EEC ( ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
      Community in the 1994/95 wine-growing year has led to               coordination of procedures for the award of public service
      a market situation which is generally satisfactory and , in         contracts into its national law .
      particular, to quite favourable prices, which should raise
      the income of wine growers . As regards the attempts on             (') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
      the part of French wine growers to curtail the
      production of table wine, the Commission points out
      that those attempts have been supported by the
      Community, in particular through the measures laid
      down by Council Directive 78/627/EEC ( ] ) on the
      programme to accelerate the restructuring and
      conversion of vineyards in certain Mediterranean
      regions in France and those laid down by Council                   Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 458/80 ( 2 ) on collective projects          the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
      for the restructuring of vineyards .                                                            Luxembourg
                                                                                ( Case C-3 12/95 )
— Insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons .                                                  ( 95/C 315/ 19 )
(') OJ No L 206 , 29 . 7 . 1978 , p . 1 .                                An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
( 2 ) OJ No L 57, 29 . 2 . 1980 , p . 27 .                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,
                                                                         Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Action brought on 2 October 1995 by the Commission of                    the Court should :
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          ( Case C-3 11 /95 )
                                                                          1 . Declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
                            ( 95/C 315/18 )                                    to adopt all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                               with Council Directives 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
                                                                               on the contained use of genetically modified
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                     micro-organisms (') and 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990
the Court of Justice on 2 October 1995 by the Commission                       on the deliberate release into the environment of
of the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                          genetically modified organisms ( 2 ), the Grand Duchy of
Gouloussis , Legal Advisor, with an address for service in                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the                    Articles 22 and 23 of Directives 90/219/EEC and
Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         90/220/EEC respectively and Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                               EC Treaty .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        2 . Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                               costs .
1 . Declare that, by failing to bring into force and, in the
      alternative, to communicate to the Commission, the
      laws , regulations and administrative provisions                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      necessary to comply fully with Council Directive
      92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination            The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
      of procedures for the award of public service contracts ,         paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States
      under the EC Treaty .                                             to whom directives are addressed to adopt the measures
                                                                        necessary for the implementation of such directives within
2 . Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      the time limit prescribed therein . The time limit in question,
                                                                        as regards both the above Directives, expired on 23 October
                                                                         1991 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     the necessary measures .
In this action for failure by a Member State to fulfil its               (') OJ No L 117 , 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
Treaty obligations ( Article 169 of the EC Treaty), the                  ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic has not
taken, and subsequently not communicated to the
Commission, the measures necessary to transpose Council