title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2003 in Case C-23/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Office national de l'emploi v Mohamed Alami (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 — Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security — Scope — Unemployment benefit)

text:
26.4.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 101/13
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 February 2003
                         of 12 February 2003
                                                                              in Case C-82/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Hof van Cassatie): Agence Maritime Lalemant NV v
in Case C-23/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteurop GIE, Belgisch Inter-
the Cour de cassation): Office national de l’emploi v                         ventie- en Restitutiebureau and between Malzfabrik Tivo-
                          Mohamed Alami ( 1)                                   li GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( 1)
                                                                              (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture —
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — EEC-Morocco                       Export refunds — Conditions for payment — Leaving the
Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 — Principle of non-                            geographical territory of the Community — Definition)
discrimination in the field of social security — Scope —
                        Unemployment benefit)                                                           (2003/C 101/23)
                            (2003/C 101/22)                                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      (Language of the case: French)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        In Case C-82/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                     in the European Court Reports)                           by the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the proceedings pending before that court between Agence
                                                                              Maritime Lalemant NV and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteur-
                                                                              op GIE, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and between
                                                                              Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitu-
In Case C-23/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              tiebureau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1) of Commission
by the Belgian Cour de cassation for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying
the proceedings pending before that court between Office
                                                                              down common detailed rules for the application of the system
national de l’emploi and Mohamed Alami, on the interpretation
                                                                              of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317,
of Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement between the
                                                                              p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/
European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
                                                                              85 of 23 December 1985 (OJ 1985 L 371, p. 1), the Court
signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of
                                                                              (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
                                                                              Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), the Court (Second
                                                                              F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
                                                                              informing the referring court that the Court proposes to give
of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                   its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of
                                                                              the Rules of Procedure, after inviting the persons referred to in
12 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                              Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit
                                                                              any observations they might have in that regard, has made an
On its proper construction, Article 41(1) of the Cooperation                  order on 27 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
Agreement between the European Economic Community and the                     follows:
Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)               Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of
No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 precludes a host Member State                 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the
from refusing to grant a worker of Moroccan nationality resident in           application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products,
its territory the benefit of a seniority supplement increasing the basic      as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/85 of
amount of unemployment benefit on the sole ground that there is no            23 December 1985 must be interpreted as meaning that the
international agreement providing that account is to be taken of work         expression ‘geographical territory of the Community’ refers to a
carried out by that worker in another Member State, even though no            physical concept and that the requirement that the product in respect
such condition is imposed on workers who are nationals of that host           of which export refunds have been applied for must have left the
Member State.                                                                 geographical territory of the Community is not satisfied either by
                                                                              placing the product under customs control or by bringing it within
                                                                              the customs warehousing procedure.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case C-444/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo n o 3 de La Coruna (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2009 — Rosa María Gaviero Gaviero v Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo no 3 de La Coruna (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2009 — Rosa María Gaviero Gaviero v Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria
   (Case C-444/09)
   2010/C 24/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo No 3 of La Coruna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rosa María Gaviero Gaviero

      Defendant: Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria (Galicia)

      Question referred

   What is the meaning of the phrase ‘different length-of service qualifications’ in Clause 4(4) of the Framework agreement in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC (1), and is the mere fact of the temporary nature of the employment relationship of those serving as public employees an ‘objective ground’ which may justify a difference in treatment as regards receipt of the length of service increment?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ L 175, 10.7.1999)


title: Case C-397/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Municipal Court lodged on 27 July 2011 — Jőrös Erika v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Municipal Court lodged on 27 July 2011 — Jőrös Erika v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.
   (Case C-397/11)
   2011/C 331/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jőrös Erika

      Defendant: Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the procedures of the national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, having found that one of the contract’s general terms relevant to the claim is unfair, the court examines its invalidity without the parties making a specific application in that regard?

               2.

               Must the national court also proceed in accordance with question 1 in a case brought by a consumer where the determination of the invalidity of a general contract term on the ground of unfairness would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction not of the local court but of a higher court, if the injured party were to bring a claim on that basis?

               3.

               In the event that question 2 is answered in the affirmative, may the national court also examine the unfairness of a general contract term in proceedings at second instance if the proceedings at first instance did not examine this and new facts and evidence cannot generally be taken into consideration in appeal proceedings under national law?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-563/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — SIA Forvards V v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Right to deduct — Refusal — Invoice issued by a company considered fictitious)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/2

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — SIA Forvards V v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-563/11) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Right to deduct - Refusal - Invoice issued by a company considered fictitious)
   2013/C 129/03
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Forvards V

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Taxable person fulfilling the requirements imposed by national law for deduction of the tax paid when goods are purchased, without any abusive conduct having been demonstrated — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT if it is established that the other party to the transaction is unable to supply the goods listed on the invoice which is formally in order

      Operative part of the order

   Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the recipient of an invoice from being denied the right to deduct input value added tax on the ground that, in the light of the fraud or irregularities committed by the issuer of that invoice, the transaction corresponding to the invoice is considered not to have been actually carried out, unless it is established, on the basis of objective factors and without requiring of the recipient of the invoice checks which are not its responsibility, that the recipient knew or should have known that that transaction was connected with value added tax fraud, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012


title: Case C-230/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n °3, de Almería (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 3, de Almería (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía
   (Case C-230/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No3, de Almería

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Águeda María Sáenz Morales

      Defendant: Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía

      Question referred

   Is Directive 1999/70/EC (1) applicable to the civil service of the administration of the Junta de Andalucía (temporary staff) and, if so, are civil servants entitled to receive three-yearly increments corresponding to periods when they were working as temporary civil servants?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-375/02: Action brought on 18 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 305/16               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
Action brought on 15 October 2002 by the Commission                       In cases where a product is handled at several stages before it
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        reaches the consumer what is or are, under Article 12(2)(a) of
                              Belgium                                     the Trade Mark Directive (1), the relevant class or classes of
                                                                          persons for determining whether a trade mark has become the
                         (Case C-370/02)                                  common name in the trade for a product in respect of which
                                                                          it is registered?
                         (2002/C 305/28)
                                                                          (1 ) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                               approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                           marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claire-Françoise Durand and
Minas Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 18 October 2002 by the Commission
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
       and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
       with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on                                        (Case C-375/02)
       the landfill of waste (1), and by failing, in any event, to
       communicate such measures to the Commission, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      (2002/C 305/30)
       under that directive;
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 October
                                                                          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                          acting as Agents.
The time-limit for transposition expired on 16 July 2001. As
regards the Region of Wallonia, the Kingdom of Belgium has
still not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive or, at all events, has not communicated those
measures to the Commission.                                               1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
                                                                                to ensure that waste deposited in the disposal sites at
                                                                                Castelliri (Frosinone) is recovered or disposed of without
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.
                                                                                endangering human health and without using procedures
                                                                                or methods which could harm the environment, and by
                                                                                failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the
                                                                                holder of waste deposited in the disposal sites at Castelliri
                                                                                (Frosinone) has such waste handled by a private or public
                                                                                collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Svea Hovrätt                           provided for in Annex II A or II B to Directive 75/442/
by order of that Court of 14 October 2002 in the case of                         EEC (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ( 2), or
Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against Procordia                         himself recovers or disposes of such waste, the Italian
                         Food Aktiebolag                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4
                                                                                and 8 of that directive;
                         (Case C-371/02)
                                                                          2.     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 305/29)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Svea Hovrätt (Svea
Court of Appeal) of 14 October 2002, received at the Court                The first paragraph of Article 4 of the directive provides that
Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                  Member States are to adopt the necessary measures to ensure
the case of Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against                that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering
Procordia Food Aktiebolag on the following question:                      human health and without using processes or methods which
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/17
could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to          2002, received at the Court Registry on 23 October 2002, for
water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a             a preliminary ruling in the case of Association Comité
nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely                 économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne
affecting the countryside or places of special interest.               (CERAFEL) against François Faou and GAEC de Kerlidou on
                                                                       the following question:
In the present case, the Italian Republic has not adopted any          Can a Member State, without infringing the principle of non-
appropriate measure to ensure that waste deposited in the Via          discrimination, apply Article 15b(1) and (8) of Regulation
Granciara disposal site in Castelliri is recovered or disposed         (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 (1) by
of without endangering human health and without using                  making certain production and marketing rules mandatory for
procedures or methods which could harm the environment.                producers who are established in the district of a Board and
Consequently, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under            who are not members of it and by making them liable for all
Article 4 of the directive.                                            or part of the fees paid by member producers, without
                                                                       distinguishing according to whether or not those non-member
                                                                       producers are part of a production sector regulated by law,
Article 8 of the directive provides that Member States are to          which, as in the case of the organic production sector, would
ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by a private or         make the Board’s measures irrelevant or of merely occasional
public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out          and marginal interest for them.
the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive, or
recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the
provisions of the directive. To that end, the owners or                (1 ) Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on
managers of disposal sites are regarded as holders within the               the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables
meaning of Article 8.                                                       (OJ L 118 of 20.5.1972, p. 1).
The Italian Republic has failed to adopt the necessary measures
to ensure that the holder of waste deposited in the disposal
site at Castelliri (Frosinone) has such waste handled by a
private or public collector or an undertaking carrying out the
operations provided for in Annex II A or II B to the directive.
Consequently, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 8 of the directive.
                                                                       Action brought on 24 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                                (Case C-383/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/32)
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 October
Caen, chambres réunies by judgment of that Court of
                                                                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
17 October 2002 in the case of Association Comité
                                                                       represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de
                                                                       acting as Agents.
Bretagne (CERAFEL) against François Faou and GAEC de
                              Kerlidou
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-381/02)
                                                                       1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
                         (2002/C 305/31)                                      to ensure that waste deposited in the disposal sites at
                                                                              Rodano (Milan) is recovered or disposed of without
                                                                              endangering human health and without using procedures
                                                                              or methods which could harm the environment, and by
                                                                              failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        holder of waste deposited in the disposal sites at Rodano
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’appel de                       (Milan) has such waste handled by a private or public
Caen (Court of Appeal, Caen) chambres réunies of 17 October                   collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations


title: Removal from the register of Case C-198/96

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 357/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            — Commission Directive 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995
                                                                                amending Directive 94/39/EC establishing a list of
                                                                                intended uses of animal feedingstuffs for particular
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a Directive                               nutritional purposes (4),
shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                      — Commission Directive 95/1 0/EC of 7 April 1995
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                             fixing the method of calculating the energy value
down in the Directive . That period expired on 3 November                           of dog and cat food intended for particular
1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                                  nutritional purposes ( 5 ),
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission .
                                                                               and/or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the
(') Council Directive 92/91 /EEC of 3 November 1992 concerning
                                                                               French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health               under Article 12 of Directive 93/74/EEC, Article 13 of
    protection of workers in the mineral-extracting industries                 Directive 94/28/EC, Article 2 of Directive 94/39/EC,
    through drilling ( 11th individual Directive within the meaning            Article      2 of Directive 95/9/EC and Article 3 of
    of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ( OJ L 348 , 28 . 11 .        Directive 95/ 1 0/EC and under the EC Treaty,
    1992, p. 9 ).
                                                                          — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 14 October 1997 by the Commission                       Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   establishing the European Community, a Directive is
                           ( Case C-3 54/97)
                                                                          binding on each Member State to which it is addressed as
                                                                          to the result to be achieved. Under the first paragraph of
                             ( 97/C 357/45 )                              Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all
                                                                          appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
                                                                          ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the
An action against the French Republic was brought before                  Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       the Community. Under the provisions of the Directives at
14 October 1997 by the Commission of the European                         issue, the Member States were obliged to bring into force
Communities, represented by Alexandre Xavier Lewis, of                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                   necessary to comply with them by 30 June 1995 or 1 July
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 1995, as appropriate, and inform the Commission thereof
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           forthwith. The French Republic has not yet informed the
                                                                          Commission of the provisions of national law adopted in
                                                                          order to transpose the Directives to which these
The Commission of the European Communities claims                         proceedings relate .
that the Court should :
                                                                          (>)  OJ L  237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p . 23 .
                                                                          (2)  OJ L  178 , 12 . 7. 1994 , p . 66 .
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within                     (')  OJ L  207, 10 . 8 . 1994 , p . 20 .
     the prescribed periods the laws, regulations                         (4 ) OJ L  91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p. 35 .
                                                                          (5)  OJ L  91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p. 39 .
     and administrative provisions, including, where
     appropriate, any sanctions, necessary to comply with:
     — Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 13 September
          1993 on feedingstuffs intended for particular
          nutritional purposes ('),
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C- 198/96 (')
     — Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994                                                        ( 97/C 357/46 )
          laying down the principles relating to the
          zootechnical          and    genealogical       conditions
          applicable to imports from third countries of                   By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
          animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
          amending Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred                      removal from the register of Case C-198/96 : Commission
          breeding animals of the bovine species ( 2 ),                   of the European Communities v. French Republic .
                                                                          (') OJ C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
     — Commission Directive 94/39/EC of 25 July 1994
          establishing a list of intended uses of animal
          feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes ( 3 ),


title: Case T-163/12: Action brought on 11 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/11

         Action brought on 11 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council
   (Case T-163/12)
   2012/C 157/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Anatoly Ternavsky (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               annul point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs in their entirety;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs under Article 87(6) in conjunction with Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court if the Court decides that there is no need to adjudicate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifestly incorrect establishment of the facts as regards the reasons which resulted in the inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of persons subject to sanctions, mentioned by the Council’s acts.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there is an insufficient statement of reasons for the contested acts inasmuch as the reasons stated are of no help in understanding the necessity for that inclusion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Decision 2010/639/CFSP and of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended, and of the principle of the prohibition of discrimination, first, in so far as the scope of those acts was extended to a businessman without establishing the conduct in support of the regime of President Lukashenko which may be attributed to him and, secondly, in so far as other businessmen, whom the Council also regards as close to the Belarusian authorities, have not, unlike the applicant, been included in the European sanctions lists.


title: Case F-16/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — ZZ v EUIPO

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/52

         Action brought on 18 March 2016 — ZZ v EUIPO
   (Case F-16/16)
   (2016/C 191/76)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 24/07/2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the defendant’s 2015 promotion procedure by not including the name of the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise issued 24/07/2015;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the procedural costs.


title: Case F-115/15: Action brought on 14 August 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/56

         Action brought on 14 August 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-115/15)
   (2015/C 320/78)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision limiting the applicant’s pension rights, for a declaration that the conclusions adopted by the Heads of Administration on 16 June 2005 are inapplicable in so far as they limit the additional pension rights to be credited to the applicant’s pension and for an order that the defendant is to pay the applicant the retirement pension to which he is entitled.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare inapplicable to the present case the conclusions of the Heads of Administration, No 240/05 of 16 June 2005, in so far as they limit, on a pro rata basis, to the actual contribution period as opposed to a complete career as an official, the additional pension rights to be credited to the applicant’s pension in relation to the management allowance;

               —

               annul the contested decision, in so far as it limits the applicant’s pension rights in respect of the management allowance on a pro rata basis to the contribution period, as opposed to the number of years of pensionable service in a complete career as an official;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant the retirement pension to which he is entitled, subject to deduction of the pension actually paid, together with default interest calculated at the rate applied by the ECB for its standard transactions, increased by two points;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-316/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/26

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-316/06)
   (2006/C 224/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applican: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanaganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing to ensure that the said discharges satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 30 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(3) of the said Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that the Irish authorities are in breach of their obligations to ensure that waste waters from the agglomerations in questions are subject to secondary treatment (or equivalent), as set out in Article 4 of the directive.
   Although Ireland has offered explanations as to the delays encountered in these agglomerations and has provided some indications of the state of progress in meeting the directive's requirements, it is the Commission's view that these explanations and indications cannot be considered as excusing a failure to meet the deadline fixed in Article 4(1), first indent, of the directive. Moreover, the Commission submits that the information provided by the Irish authorities is insufficient to allow it to conclude that the installation of secondary waste-water treatment plants in these agglomerations is imminent. In most cases, it appears that several further stages need to be completed before the treatment plants will be installed.

      (1)  OJ L 135, P.40 - 52


title: Designation of Presidents of Chamber and the composition of the Chambers

text:
C 226/28              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designation of Presidents of Chamber and the compo-                        to the Fourth Chamber:
                    sition of the Chambers
                                                                           Ms Tiili (President of Chamber), Mr Moura Ramos and Mr
                        (1999/C 226/52)                                    Mengozi, Judges;
At its plenary meeting on 6 July 1999 the Court of First                   to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of           Ms Tiili (President of Chamber), Ms Lindh, Mr Moura
the period between 1 October 1999 and 31 September 2000:                   Ramos, Mr Cooke and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                           to the Fifth Chamber:
(a) to designate as Presidents of Chamber
                                                                           Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of Chamber), Ms Lindh
    — Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,                                               and Mr Cooke, Judges;
    — Mr Lenaerts,                                                         to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
    — Ms Tiili,
                                                                           Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy,
                                                                           Ms Lindh, Mr Cooke Rnd Mr Vilaras, Judges.
    — Mr Pirrung;
(b) to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance to the       Cases pending before the present Chambers have been reallo-
    Chambers as follows:                                              cated with effect from 1 October 1999 to the Chamber,
                                                                      composed of the same number of Judges, of which the
                                                                      Judge-Rapporteur in each particular case is a member.
    to the First Chamber:
    Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy and Mr Vilaras,             However, for cases in which the written procedure was
    Judges;                                                           completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or
                                                                      fixed before 1 October 1999, the Chamber shall continue to
                                                                      sit with the same composition as before for the oral procedure,
    to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:                       the deliberation and the judgment.
    Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Potocki, Mr Meij
    and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
                                                                      Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
    to the Second Chamber:
                                                                      At its plenary meeting on 6 July 1999 the Court of First
    Mr Pirrung (President of Chamber), Mr Potocki and Mr              Instance established the following criteria for the assignment
    Meij, Judges;                                                     of cases to the Chambers for the period ending 30 September
                                                                      2000, pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:
    to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                      1.
    Mr Pirrung (President of Chamber), Mr Azizi, Mr Potocki,
    Mr Jaeger and Mr Meii, Judges;                                         (a) Actions concerning the implementation of the rules
                                                                               on State aid or the rules on trace protection measures
    to the Third Chamber:                                                      shall be assigned, with effect from the lodging of the
                                                                               application and without prejudice to any subsequent
                                                                               application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of
    Mr Lenaerts (President of Chamber), Mr Azizi and Mr                        Procedure, to Chambers with an extended composition
    Jaeger, Judges;                                                            of five Judges.
    to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:                            (b) All other cases shall be assigned, with effect from the
                                                                               lodging of the application and without prejudice to
    Mr Lenaerts (President of Chamber), Mr Azizi, Mr Moura                     any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of
    Ramos, Mr Jaeger and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;                                  the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/29
2. The cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be           Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay
     allocated between the Chambers as follows:                                     against the European Investment Bank
     (a) The cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be assigned
         in turn, according to the order in which they are                                       (Case T-96/99)
         registered at the Court Registry, to the First Second,
         Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended Compo-                                      (1999/C 226/53)
         sition;
     (b) Cases concerning intellectual property, as referred to                            (Language of the case: French)
         in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
         of First Instance, shall be assigned according to the
         order in which they are registered at the Court Registry,      An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
         to the Second and Fourth Chambers;                             before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay, resident in Luxem-
     (c) The cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be assigned      bourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
         to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers.        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
         Such assignment is to be effected on the basis of three        Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
         separate rotas, reflecting the order in which the cases
         are registered at the Court Registry:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
         — for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC
              Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,                — annul the decision adopted by the European Investment
                                                                            Bank (‘the EIB’), by memorandum dated 18 February 1999
         — for the cases concerning the implementation of the               drawn up by its President, Sir Brian Unwin, notifying the
              rules of competition applicable to undertakings,              applicant of the continuation for an indefinite period of
                                                                            the decision previously adopted on 27 July 1998 not to
         — for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).                   treat the civil statue of ‘partnerschap’ as equivalent to
                                                                            marriage, together with the consequences which may arise
                                                                            therefrom in relation to the pension scheme and the family
For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent of             allowance;
paragraph 2(c), the assignment of cases concerning intellectual
property to the Second and Fourth Chamber on the basis of
the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be compensated for         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
by the assignment of cases to the First, Third and Fifth
Chambers on a pro rata basis.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs 2(a)
and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended             The applicant, a former member of the staff of the European
Composition, presided over by the President of the Court of             Investment Bank (‘EIB’), contests the refusal by the appointing
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every third        authority to take account of the act, registered in the Nether-
time the end of a rota is reached.                                      lands in accordance with Netherlands law, recognising his
                                                                        cohabitation (‘partnerschap’) as a partner for life with another
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from          person, as regards its possible effects on the pension scheme
that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view          and family allowance provided for by the Staff Regulations of
to ensuring an even spread of the workload.                             the EIB.
                                                                        The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not in
Plenary session                                                         conformity with the Conciliation Board’s recommendation of
                                                                        5 November 1998, which stated that the EIB’s Staff Regulations
At its plenary meeting on 6 July 1999, the Court of First               and pension rules should be revised in order to take into
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of                 account, in particular, the changes occurring in the social
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First           environment within the Union, which have been recognised
Instance that where, following the designation of an Advocate           by the enactment of legislation in certain Member States, and
general pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there         the staff regulations of other comparable institutions. The
is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance              Conciliation Board also considered that any change resulting
sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance in          from such revision should be applicable to the present case.
accordance with which the President of the Court is to
designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges          In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of          Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, of Articles 52 and 53 of
the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be               the Staff Pension Scheme Rules, of Article 119 of the Treaty
designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be          on European Union and of the Conciliation Board’s decision
the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be                    of 5 November 1998, as well as breach of certain general
designated.                                                             principles of law, such as the principle of the protection of
                                                                        legitimate expectations, the principle of equality of treatment
                                                                        as between the various members of the staff of an institution
                                                                        and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.


title: Case T-87/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors (Arbitration clause — Public service contracts — Surveillance and security services for the buildings of the Court of Auditors — Action for annulment — Decision to unilaterally terminate the contract with application for payment of damages and interest — Measure of a contractual nature — Lack of reclassification of the action — Inadmissibility — Decision to impose a penalty of exclusion for three months — Interest in bringing proceedings — Rights of defence — Serious breach of obligations — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — Misuse of powers — Proportionality)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-87/11) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Public service contracts - Surveillance and security services for the buildings of the Court of Auditors - Action for annulment - Decision to unilaterally terminate the contract with application for payment of damages and interest - Measure of a contractual nature - Lack of reclassification of the action - Inadmissibility - Decision to impose a penalty of exclusion for three months - Interest in bringing proceedings - Rights of defence - Serious breach of obligations - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Misuse of powers - Proportionality)
   2013/C 147/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: GRP Security (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially by G. Osch, then by C. Arendt and M. Larbi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: initially by T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and J. Vermer, then by T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 14 January 2011 to unilaterally terminate the framework service contract ‘Various security services’ (LOG/2026/10/02) and to apply for payment of damages and interest and, secondly, application for annulment of the decision of 14 January 2011 to impose a penalty of exclusion

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GRP Security to pay the costs, including those relating to the applications for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case C-263/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Commission Decision ordering recovery of aid — Failure to comply with a Commission Decision)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-263/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Commission Decision ordering recovery of aid - Failure to comply with a Commission Decision)
   2013/C 367/25
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, K. Boskovits, G. Kanellopoulos and M. Karageorgou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. (notified under document C(2011) 1006) (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27) — Failure to take all the measures necessary for the recovery of aid which has been found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. the aid granted to that undertaking on the sale, by the Greek State, of immovable property, aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision C(2011) 1006 final of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E., the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case T-568/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Vivendi v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/19

         Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Vivendi v Commission
   (Case T-568/10)
   2011/C 72/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vivendi (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fréget, J.-Y. Ollier and M. Struys, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2010 by which it rejected the complaint lodged by Vivendi on 2 March 2009 (registered under number 2009/4267), for infringement by the French Republic of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 December 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services and, consequently, Article 106(1) TFEU, by granting a regulatory advantage in refusing ARCEP the right to use its powers to force the incumbent operator to reimburse the operators seeking access to the local loop the sums charged in excess of the costs incurred in providing the service which is subject to cost-orientation;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant raises four pleas as regards the substance:

               1.

               The first plea is based on an error of law concerning the definition of a ‘special right’ within the meaning of Directive 2002/77/EC. (1)

               2.

               The second plea is based on the Commission's failure to comply with its duty to ensure application under Article 106(3) TFEU.

               3.

               The third plea is based on an error of law, in so far as the Commission wrongly considered that the obligation to orientate certain tariffs towards costs is not laid down in a European Union directive, but is the responsibility of the national regulator.

               4.

               The fourth plea is based on an error of law in that the Commission considered that the rights of the private operators were not infringed since they could resort to the national commercial law courts to obtain reimbursements of the excessively high sums levied by France Télécom, given that the complexity of such a case makes it impossible to fully exercise the right to reimbursement before those courts.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case C-149/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Designation of waters and vulnerable zones — Excessive concentration of nitrates — Eutrophification — Obligation of four-yearly revision — Insufficiency — Establishment of action programmes — None)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/12

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-149/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Designation of waters and vulnerable zones - Excessive concentration of nitrates - Eutrophification - Obligation of four-yearly revision - Insufficiency - Establishment of action programmes - None))
   (2015/C 205/16)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               —

               declares that, by having failed to designate as vulnerable zones the zones characterised by the presence of bodies of surface water or groundwater which are affected by concentrations of nitrates above 50 milligrammes per litre and/or by the phenomenon of eutrophification, and by not having established the action programmes related to those zones within one year after that designation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4) and 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

               —

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.06.2014.


title: Case F-91/12: Action brought on 3 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/33

      Action brought on 3 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-91/12)
      (2012/C 331/63)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Action for annulment of the decision to calculate the entitlement to pension rights acquired before the entry into service on the basis of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decision to calculate the entitlement to pension rights acquired before the entry into service on the basis of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-344/07: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2010 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Homezone — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2010 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone)
   (Case T-344/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Homezone - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 80/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4), concerning an application to register the word sign Homezone as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-317/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Community system for fisheries — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3760/92 and 2847/93 — Fishing quotas exceeded)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-317/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Community system for fisheries - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3760/92 and 2847/93 - Fishing quotas exceeded)
   (2005/C 6/11)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-317/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 11 September 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Fitch and T. van Rijn, and subsequently T. van Rijn and B. Doherty) and Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan, assisted by A. Schuster) - the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by not putting in place the criteria and detailed rules for the use of the fishing quota allocated to it;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure compliance with Community rules on the conservation of aquatic marine living resources by the monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate inspection of landings and the recording of catches, inspections and other controls as required by the relevant Community regulations;

                           —

                           by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by vessels flying its flag or registered within its territory when the quotas allocated to it were deemed to have been exhausted; and

                           —

                           by failing to initiate administrative or criminal proceedings against the masters of vessels who infringed the applicable regulations or against any person responsible for such an infringement,

                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture and under Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2005 in Case C-75/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Ministerie van Financiën v Hendrik Hanssens and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 21 January 2005
   in Case C-75/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Ministerie van Financiën v Hendrik Hanssens and Others (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 106/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-75/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) (Belgium), by decision of 11 February 2004, received at the Court on 17 February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Ministerie van Financiën and Hendrik Hanssens, Rudi Verhoeven and World Wide Shipping and Forwarding NV (WWSF) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and J. Makarczyk, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 21 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by decision of 11 February 2004 is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Bo Forvass against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-203/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 19
have been remitted in accordance with the principle                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997
of the protection of legitimate expectations, laid down                   by Dr Seufert GmbH, whose registered office is at
in particular in Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                    Karlsruhe, represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt,
No 1697/97.                                                               Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter,
(') See previous cases.                                                   Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision REM 21 /96 of 25 March
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Horten AG against                            1997, refusing the remission of a payment of
                                                                               DM 126 828,26 ,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-191/97)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                             ( 97IC 318/37)
                (Language of the case: German)                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                          The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         applicant, whose predecessor imported colour television
Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997                      sets from Turkey in 1992 and 1993 , and which challenges
by Horten AG, whose registered office is at Diisseldorf,                  a Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                 effect that the remission of import duties in its case would
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   be unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and
Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, Luxembourg.                             T-l 87/97 ( M.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal .
— annul        Commission          Decision    REM       14/96   of
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment
     of DM 123 809,12,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Bo Forvass against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-203/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/39 )
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant, which imported television sets from Turkey                                     (Language of the case: French)
between October 1992 and January 1993 and challenges a
Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the effect
that the remission of import duties in its case would be                  An action against the Commission of the European
unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
T-187/97 (').                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1997 by
                                                                          Bo Forvass, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
                                                                          Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson sari, 30
                                                                          rue de Cessange .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Dr Seufert GmbH                        — rule that the applicant is entitled to be classified in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                          grade A 4, step 4, with effect from the date of his
                         ( Case T-192/97)                                      entry into service, namely 1 February 1996,
                            ( 97/C 318/38 )
                                                                         — consequently, annul the Commission's decision of
                (Language of the case: German)                                 19 March 1997 expressly rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/20            [ EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10. 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 7 July 1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a
                                                                      Agro-Alimentagao e Cereais, SA, against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
The applicant, a Swedish national employed as a grade                                         ( Case T-204/97 )
A 5 member of the temporary staff, contests his
classification in that grade . He points out, in that regard,                                   ( 97/C 318/40 )
that the Swedish version of the Official Journal of the
European Communities which the defendant sent to the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
applicant in consequence of the interest expressed by the
latter referred to an offer of a grade A 4 post in the VAT
Unit of DG XXI ( offer 6T/XXI/94 ). Other posts were also             An action against the Commission of the European
offered at different grades in the same publication . After           Communities was brought before the Court of First
he had submitted his application for the abovementioned               Instance of the European Communities on 7 July 1997 by
post, it was formally offered to him by the Commission,               EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA,
which nevertheless indicated to him that he would be
                                                                      whose registered office is at Avenida Almirante Gago
classified in grade A 5 , step 1 . Upon the applicant pointing        Coutinho, N? 26 , Lisbon, represented by Joao Mota de
out that he had applied for an A 4 post, the competent                Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
service of the Commission replied that the classification             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Joaquim Calvo Basaran,
in grade A 5 was provisional and that his definitive                  34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen, 1515 Luxembourg.
classification would be determined by the Grading
Committee .     It was    not  until  six   months    after  the
commencement of his employment that the applicant                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
learned that he was to be definitively classified in grade
A 5 , step 3 , and that the initial proposal concerning
classification in grade A 4 resulted from an error in the             — uphold the application and thus declare null and void
Swedish version of the Official Journal of the European                     the contested decision,
 Communities .
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In support of his claims, the applicant makes the
following assertions :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate             EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentagao e Cereais, SA, a
     expectations, in that he was at all times persuaded to           limited liability company governed by Portuguese law,
     apply for a grade A 4 post and could not reasonably              whose capital is exclusively public, challenges the interim
     have detected the error which the defendant admits               measure of 30 April 1997 whereby the Commission of the
     having committed ,                                               European Communities ordered the Portuguese State to
                                                                      ' suspend immediately the State guarantee granted to EPAC
                                                                      — Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais'. The
 — the existence in the present case of a manifest error of           object of EPAC, as a public undertaking, consists in
     assessment, inasmuch as classification in grade A 5               'ensuring the supply of cereals and seed, taking into
     would not have taken into account the exceptional                account the protection of production, consumption
     qualifications which he possesses in the field of                requirements and the overriding interests of the domestic
     revenue law. Indeed, upon being recruited, the                   economy', activities and obligations which it performed as
     applicant understood the Commission to say that it                a monopoly.
     wished to engage him on account of his exceptional
     experience . It could therefore be maintained that the
     specific needs of the service required the engagement            The applicant claims that it is going through financial
     of a staff member with particular qualifications,                 difficulties as a result of circumstances attributable to acts
                                                                       or omissions of the State which the latter had the duty to
                                                                       make good in the context of an appropriate economic and
                                                                       financial restructuring.
 — failure to observe the duty to have regard for the
     welfare and interests of officials, in that, by refusing to
     take account of the notice of vacancy published in                Among the causes which led to that situation, the
     the Swedish version of the Official Journal of the                applicant cites :
     European Communities, which constitutes an official ,
     public act binding on the Commission, and by
     refusing, moreover, to take into account the                       1 . the liberalization of the trade in cereals brought about
     exceptional nature of his qualifications, the                           by accession to the Community;
     Commission disregarded his interests .
                                                                        2 . the failure of the only shareholder to provide proper
                                                                             and timeous financial support;


               3.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/12

         Action brought on 24 June 2013 by Abelia against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-8/13)
   2013/C 287/08
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 24 June 2013 by Abelia, represented by attorney-at-law Ingebjørg Harto and attorney-at-law Nina Lea Gjerde, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), PO Box 5250 Majorstuen, 0303 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare void Article 1 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013;

               2.

               order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The applicant is a trade and employers association within the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hoved-organisasjon) representing 1 250 member companies within IT, telecommunications, research and development, consultancy and education services.

               —

               The basis for the application is the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013 to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the Norwegian provisions on VAT and VAT compensation are to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The applicant claims, inter alia, that:

                           —

                           the EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA), c.f. Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 SCA,

                           —

                           the EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to provide reasons as required by Article 16 SCA.


title: Case T-85/11 P: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Marucccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Serious illness — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Commission decision refusing to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the appellant at the rate of 100 % — Obligation to state reasons — Article 72 of the Staff Regulations — Criteria adopted by the medical council — Opinion of the medical officer produced during the proceedings — Competence of the head of the settlements office — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Marucccio v Commission
   (Case T-85/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Serious illness - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Commission decision refusing to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the appellant at the rate of 100 % - Obligation to state reasons - Article 72 of the Staff Regulations - Criteria adopted by the medical council - Opinion of the medical officer produced during the proceedings - Competence of the head of the settlements office - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 108/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 in Case F-65/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-118/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Duty to state reasons — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)
   (Case T-118/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Duty to state reasons - Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 129/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and C. Balme, Solicitors)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 931/2005-1) concerning registration of the word sign ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 931/2005-1) in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Zuffa, LLC, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) N0 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-205/10 P, C-217/10 P and C-222/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 January 2011 — Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (C-205/10 P), Bent Hansen (C-217/10 P), Brigit Lind (C-222/10 P) v European Commission (Appeal — Actions for damages — Public health implications of the nuclear accident that occurred near Thule (Greenland, Denmark) — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/3

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 January 2011 — Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (C-205/10 P), Bent Hansen (C-217/10 P), Brigit Lind (C-222/10 P) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-205/10 P, C-217/10 P and C-222/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Actions for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident that occurred near Thule (Greenland, Denmark) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State)
   2011/C 120/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (C-205/10 P), Bent Hansen (C-217/10 P), Brigit Lind (C-222/10 P) (represented by: I. Anderson, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. White, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the orders of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 in Case T-516/08 Erikson v Commission, Case T-6/09 Hansen v Commission and Case T-5/09 Lind v Commission whereby the General Court dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law actions for damages seeking compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicants following a failure by the Commission to take the measures necessary to oblige Denmark to comply with Directive 96/29 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and to apply those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland), disregarding the resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2007 on the consequences of that accident on public health (Petition 720/2002, 2006/2012 (INI))

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Eriksen, Mr Hansen and Ms Lind shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-161/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014  — Free v OHIM Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FreeLounge — Earlier national figurative mark free ‘LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX’ , earlier national word mark ‘FREE’ , company name ‘FREE’ and domain name ‘FREE.FR’  — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Power to alter)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Free v OHIM Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge)
   (Case T-161/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FreeLounge - Earlier national figurative mark free ‘LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX’, earlier national word mark ‘FREE’, company name ‘FREE’ and domain name ‘FREE.FR’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter))
   2014/C 235/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Conradi + Kaiser GmbH (Kleinmaischeid, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Conradi + Kaiser GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2) is annulled in so far as it considered that the services for online publication of electronic books and periodicals as well as the services for publication of periodicals and books in electronic form, including on the Internet, falling within Class 41 and covered by the application for registration, were not similar to the services to disseminate information electronically, in particular for Internet-style global communication networks, falling within Class 38 and covered by the earlier figurative mark;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case F-68/06: Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/48

         Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission
   (Case F-68/06)
   (2006/C 212/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Reint Jacob Bakema (Zuidlaren, the Netherlands) (represented by: L. Rijpkema, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) dated 22 March 2006;

               —

               Order the AACC to engage the applicant in function group IV, grade 16;

               —

               Declare that the applicant must be granted an adequate sum by way of damages.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former member of the so-called local technical assistance staff (ALAT), has been engaged as a member of the contract staff and classified in function group IV, grade 14.
   In his action, the applicant claims that the defendant made inaccurate application of the relevant legislation, especially of Article 82 (2) (c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and Article 2 of General Implementation Provisions (GIP) 49-2004. The applicant submits that the defendant's interpretation of the term ‘diploma’ contained in those articles is inaccurate and arbitrary. In the calculation of his professional experience, the defendant should have taken into consideration all the activities the applicant carried out after obtaining his ‘kandidaatsdiploma’.
   The applicant further claims that, even if he used to be a member of ALAT before his engagement as a member of contract staff, the principle laid down in Article 86 of the CEOS should be applied to his case. According to that principle, where an agent moves to a new post within a function group, he shall not be classified in a lower grade or step than in his former post.


title: Case C-79/07: Action brought on 13 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/24

         Action brought on 13 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-79/07)
   (2007/C 82/43)
   Language of the case: Maltese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou Durande and K. Xuereb, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 6 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 321, p. 26.