title: Case C-429/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 August 2011 by Gosselin Group NV, formerly Gosselin World Wide Moving NV, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08 Gosselin Group NV and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v European Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/8

         Appeal brought on 18 August 2011 by Gosselin Group NV, formerly Gosselin World Wide Moving NV, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08 Gosselin Group NV and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v European Commission
   (Case C-429/11 P)
   2011/C 331/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Gosselin Group NV, formerly Gosselin World Wide Moving NV, (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, (i) set aside the judgment under appeal (1) in so far as the General Court finds that the unlawful practices by their nature restrict competition and that there is no need to prove anti-competitive effects; and (ii) annul the Decision (2) (as amended and in so far as it relates to the appellant) since it contains no proof of the consequences in terms of competition law of the practices for which the appellant is held liable;

               —

               in the alternative, (i) set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court finds that the Commission was entitled, exceptionally, to rely on the second alternative condition in paragraph 53 of the Guidelines on the effect on trade between States (3) without specifically determining the market within the meaning of paragraph 55 of those guidelines; and (ii) annul the Decision (as amended and in so far as it relates to the appellant) since the Commission did not demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that the practices appreciably affect trade between States;

               —

               in the further alternative, (i) set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court finds that the Commission was not obliged, either in the context of its assessment of the gravity of the infringement or in the context of mitigating circumstances, to take into account the fact that the appellant had not participated in the written price agreements or in the meetings; and (ii) annul the Decision (as amended and in so far as it relates to the appellant) on the same grounds;

               —

               in the further alternative, (i) set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it applies a rate of 17 % of relevant sales without taking into account all 30 relevant circumstances, relying inter alia on a minimum threshold of 15 %; and (ii) annul the Decision (as amended and in so far as it relates to the appellant) on the same grounds;

               —

               in the further alternative, (i) set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds that the appellant’s participation between 31 January 1992 and 30 October 1993 is not time-barred; (ii) annul the Decision (as amended and in so far as it relates to the appellant) in so far as the fine imposed the appellant is calculated on the basis of the appellant’s participation between 31 January 1992 and 30 October 1993; and (iii) reduce the fine accordingly;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, Gosselin Group NV submits that the General Court infringed European Union law, erring in law in its characterisation of the facts which it established (cover quotes and commissions) as price agreements and market-sharing practices, and that, at the very least, the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in that regard.
   In the alternative, Gosselin Group NV submits that the General Court:

               —

               in its assessment of the appreciable effects of the practices at issue on trade between Member States, infringed the rule that the Commission must follow its own guidelines;

               —

               in its assessment of the mitigating circumstances in the context of the calculation of the fine, infringed the principle of the personal nature of liability and also the rule that the Commission must follow its own guidelines;

               —

               in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine, infringed the obligation to state reasons, the principle of the personal nature of liability and also the rule that the Commission must follow its own guidelines. Under the first limb, it is submitted that the General Court erred in its view that the Commission was entitled to rely on paragraph 23 of the Guidelines on setting fines. (4) Under the second limb it is submitted that the General Court erred in law in finding that there is a minimum rate of 15 % of the value of sales that is, by definition, the minimum starting point for a fine for serious restrictions of competition. Under the third limb, it is submitted that the General Court erred in law in finding that 17 % is equal or almost equal to 15 % and in concluding from that that all the relevant circumstances did not have to be taken into account;

               —

               infringed Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 (5) by ruling that the participation of Gosselin Group NV in the practices at issue in the period from 31 November 1992 to 30 October 1993 is not time-barred.

      (1)  Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08 Gosselin Group NV and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v European Commission (‘the judgment under appeal’).

      (2)  Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) (‘the Decision’).

      (3)  Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 81).

      (4)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

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


title: Case C-478/04: Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/6

         Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-478/04)
   (2005/C 31/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Giuseppe Bambara, acting as Agents.

               —

               The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:

                           a)

                           by not adopting the necessary measures to ensure that dangerous waste deposited in the dump of Ca di Capri (Verona) are recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using procedures or methods which might be prejudicial to the environment; and

                           b)

                           by not adopting the necessary measures to ensure that the owner of dangerous waste deposited in that dump consigns such waste to a private or public disposal contractor, or to an undertaking carrying out the operations referred to in Annexes IIA or IIB to the directive, or himself carries out its recovery or disposal in compliance with Community provisions; and

                           c)

                           by not adopting the necesssary measures to ensure, in relation to such dumping, that, at the place where dangerous waste is deposited, it is catalogued and identified, that various categories of dangerous waste are not mixed together, and that dangerous waste is not mixed with non-dangerous waste,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and under Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste.

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission maintains that, on the grounds set out in its application, the Italian Republic has, in relation to the dump of Ca di Capri (Verona) failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EC, and under Directive 91/689/EEC.

      (1)  OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32

      (3)  OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20


title: Case T-449/15: Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/44

         Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo)
   (Case T-449/15)
   (2015/C 320/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, QC)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘luvo’ — Application for registration No 11 244 324

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 877/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               dismiss the AMS’s Opposition;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-90/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction — Distortion of evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Principle of legality — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-90/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Principle of legality - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))
   (2017/C 112/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (represented by: J. Schulte, M. Dallmann and K. Künstner, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dimsisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case C-184/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court finding a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260 TFEU — State aid — Recovery — Unlawful aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Individual aid granted under that scheme — Pecuniary penalty)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-184/11) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court finding a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260 TFEU - State aid - Recovery - Unlawful aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Individual aid granted under that scheme - Pecuniary penalty))
   2014/C 212/02
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 260 TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03 Commission v Spain ([2006] ECR I-11887) — Application to impose a penalty payment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 26 June 2008 expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03 Commission v Spain EU:C:2006:777, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 30 million;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-219/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 11 May 2011 — BrainProducts GmbH v Bio Semi V.O.F. and Others

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 11 May 2011 — BrainProducts GmbH v Bio Semi V.O.F. and Others
   (Case C-219/11)
   2011/C 232/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant and appellant: BrainProducts GmbH

      Defendants and respondents: Bio Semi V.O.F., Antonius Pieter Kuiper,. Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn

      Question referred

   Does a product which is intended by the manufacturer to be applied for human beings for the purpose of investigation of a physiological process constitute a medical device, within the terms of the third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42/EEC, (1) only in the case where it is intended for a medical purpose?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), last amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona Tingsrätt by order of that court of 6 August 1997 in the case of Åklagaren v. Antoine Kortas (Case C-319/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona                1 . Can a Directive adopted pursuant to Article 100a of
Tingsrätt by order of that court of 6 August 1997 in the                  the Treaty of Rome have direct effect ?
             case of Åklagaren v. Antoine Kortas
                        ( Case C-3 19/97 )                            2 . If so, can such a Directive have direct effect even if the
                                                                          State has made notification pursuant to Article 100a (4 )
                          ( 97/C 318/24 )                                 of the Treaty of Rome ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                3 . If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, how does
European Communities by an order of the Landskrona                        the notification by the Member State affect the
Tingsrätt ( District Court, Landskrona ) of 6 August 1997,                question of direct effect during the following periods:
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 September                   ( a ) between notification and reply ?
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v.
Antoine Kortas on the following questions:                                 ( b ) from the reply ?
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             4 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                     of 18 September 1997
                                                                      H OJ C 318 , 26 . 10. 1996 and
in Joined Cases T-121/96 and T-151/96: Mutual Aid                         OJ C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997.
Administration Services NV (MAAS ) v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (')
(Actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the
peoples of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan — Successful tenderer's duty to pay dispatch
                               money)
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           ( 97/C 318/25 )
                                                                                of 4 July 1997
                                                                      in Case T-93/94 ( 92 ): Michael Becker v. Court of
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                     Auditors of the European Communities ( l )
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
In Joined Cases T-121/96 and T-151 /96 : Mutual Aid                                              ( 97/C 318/26 )
Administration Services NV ( MAAS ), established in
Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Jan Tritsmans and
Koenraad Maenhout, of the Antwerp Bar, with an address
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rene Faltz,
6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents: Blanca Vila Costa and
Hubert van Vliet) — application for annulment of the                  In Case T-93/94 ( 92 ): Michael Becker, an official of the
Commission's decisions requiring the applicant to pay                 Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
dispatch money — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                 in Luxembourg, represented by Roy Nathan, of the
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R Lindh                Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the              Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September 1997, in              against the Court of Auditors of the European
which it:                                                             Communities ( Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram
                                                                      and Paolo Giusta ) — application for taxation of costs
                                                                      following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                      6 March 1996 in Case T-93/94 ( Becker v. Court of
 1 . orders that Cases T-121 /96 and T-151 /96 he joined for          Auditors [ 1996] ECR II p. 141 ) — the Court of First
     the purposes of judgment;                                        Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,
                                                                      President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
                                                                      Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 1997, in
2 . dismisses    the   application     in  Case   T-121 /96   as      which it:
     inadmissible:
                                                                      fixes the total amount of costs recoverable by the
3 . dismisses the application in Case T-151 /96;                      applicant up to the date of this order, including costs


title: Case T-278/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Eric den Hamer against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/48                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
                                                                              EUR 25 000 for non-material damage;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 December
      2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations,
      namely removal from post without reduction or with-
      drawal of entitlement to retirement pension;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                        of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general
                                                                        provisions for the implementation of that article. The applicant
                                                                        pleads, moreover, numerous errors and contradictions con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         tained in the staff report, lack of statement of reasons and
                                                                        breach of the rights of defence.
In support of his application, the applicant relies on Article 87
of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of the Annex thereto.
According to the applicant, he was not given a proper hearing
during the disciplinary proceedings leading to the sanction in
question. Moreover, the applicant pleads breach of the obli-
gation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and               Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef
breach of the principle of proportionality.                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/84)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Eric den Hamer
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-278/01)                                 European Communities on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio
                                                                        Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                        by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                         (2002/C 3/83)                                  Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in part Decision No 3019 of 13 November 2000
                                                                              of the appointing authority, received on 17 November
                                                                              2000. More precisely, in so far as it awards BEF 25 000 to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the applicant as compensation for the non-material
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    damage arising from the delay in drawing up his staff
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Eric den                           reports for the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 and
Hamer, residing in Malines (Belgium), represented by Nicolas                  1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     award the applicant BEF 300 000 by way of damages to
                                                                              compensate for the non-material damage arising from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 December                —     award the applicant BEF 100 000 by way of damages to
      2000 definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for             compensate for the non-material damage arising from
      1995/1997;                                                              the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission not to add
      to the applicant’s personal file his two staff reports for        —     make an order as to costs, requiring the defendant to pay
      1995/1997;                                                              all costs, charges and fees.


title: Case T-306/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2014  — Yusef v European Commission (Common foreign and security policy  — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban  — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002  — Freezing of a person’s funds and economic resources as a result of his inclusion on a list drawn up by a United Nations body  — Sanctions Committee  — Subsequent inclusion in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002  — Commission’s refusal to de-list  — Action for failure to act  — Fundamental rights  — Right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to property)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2014 — Yusef v European Commission
   (Case T-306/10) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of a person’s funds and economic resources as a result of his inclusion on a list drawn up by a United Nations body - Sanctions Committee - Subsequent inclusion in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 - Commission’s refusal to de-list - Action for failure to act - Fundamental rights - Right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to property))
   2014/C 142/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by E. Grieves, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor, and subsequently by E. Grieves, H. Miller and P. Moser QC, and R. Graham, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, and subsequently by E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Re:

   Application seeking a declaration, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission unlawfully failed to revoke Commission Regulation (EC) No 1629/2005 of 5 October 2005 amending for the 54th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2005 L 260, p. 9), in so far as that act concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty and under Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001, by not remedying the procedural deficiencies and substantive irregularities affecting the freezing of the funds of Mr Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay, apart from its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Yusef and the sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court.

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case C-351/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 22 July 2004, in the case of Ikea Wholesale Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 22 July 2004, in the case of Ikea Wholesale Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-351/04)
   (2004/C 262/31)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, dated 22 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ikea Wholesale Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:

               i)

               in the light of the findings of the Panel of the DSB of the WTO in its report dated the 30th October 2000, paragraph 7.2(g) and (h), WT/DS1412/R and of the Appellate Body of the DSB of the WTO in its decision dated the 1st March 2002, paragraphs 86 to 87, WT/DS1141/AB/R, is all or part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of the 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan (1) incompatible with Community law, in that it:

                           a)

                           applied a wrong methodology in calculating the amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses and for profits, contrary to Article 2(6)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the Community (2), as amended, and Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;

                           b)

                           applied a wrong methodology incorporating the practice of ‘zeroing’ in determining the existence of dumping margins when comparing normal value with export price, contrary to Article 2(11) of Regulation 384/96 and Article 2.4.2. of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and/or

                           c)

                           failed to evaluate all the relevant injury factors having a bearing on the state of the Community industry and erred in determining the injury to the Community industry by relying on evidence obtained from companies outside the Community industry, contrary to Article 3(5) of Regulation 384/96 and Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement?

               ii)

               are any or all of:

                           a)

                           Council Regulation No 1644/2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and suspending its application with regard to imports originating in India (3);

                           b)

                           Council Regulation 160/2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and terminating the proceeding with regard to imports originating in Pakistan (4); and/or

                           c)

                           Council Regulation (EC) No 696/2002 confirming the definitive antidumping duty imposed on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97, as amended and suspended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001 (5);

                     incompatible with Community law (including Articles 1, 7(1) and 9(4) of Regulation 384/96 read in the light of Articles 1, 7.1 and 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement) insofar as (i) they were adopted on the basis of a reassessment of information which was collected during the original investigation period, which reassessment showed that no dumping or lower levels of dumping had taken place during the original investigation period; but (ii) the above regulations fail to provide for reimbursement of sums already paid pursuant to Regulation 2398/97?

               iii)

               are Regulations 1664/2001, 160/2002 and 696/2002 further incompatible with Articles 7(2) and 9(4) of Regulation 384/96 and the principle of proportionality, in that they allow for a level of anti-dumping duty, for the period prior to their entry into force, that is not strictly proportionate to the amount of dumping or injury the duty is intended to offset?

               iv)

               do the answers to the above questions differ in respect of exports originating in India as against Pakistan, given:

                           a)

                           the procedures followed before DSB of the WTO; and/or

                           b)

                           the findings of the Commission recorded in Regulations 1664/2001, 160/2002 and 696/2002?

               v)

               in the light of the answers to the above questions:

                           a)

                           must a national customs authority repay all or part of the anti-dumping duties which it has collected pursuant to Regulation 2398/97; and

                           b)

                           if so, to whom and under what conditions should repayment be made?

      (1)  OJ L 332, 4.12.1997, p.1.

      (2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1.

      (3)  OJ L 219, 14.8.2001, p.1.

      (4)  OJ L 26, 30.1.2002, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 109, 25.4.2002, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale against the European Parliament (Case T-123/95)

text:
No C 229/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
— Dual infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25                 from the effective date of dissolution of the relationship
    of the Staff Regulations: The second paragraph of                      until reinstatement, together with allowance for
    Article 25 of the Staff Regulations provides that any                  inflation and interest, and together also with
    decision relating to a specific individual must be                    compensation for psychological, non-material and
    communicated in writing to the official concerned and                 material damage ( which the applicant reserves the right
    that any decision adversely affecting an official must                to quantify in the course of the action ), together with
    state the grounds on which it is based. The facts, which               interest to be assessed in such manner as may be just;
    are indisputable and which the Commission itself
    accepts, disclose a dual infringement of that provision :
    the decision was not the subject of a formal act                 — order the European Parliament ( ELDR Group ) to pay
                                                                           the costs .
    communicated in writing and still less of a reasoned
    administrative act .
— Manifest injustice : Although the appointing authority             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    has a broad discretion as regards the assignment of
     officials to particular duties or the revocation of such        The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff
     assignments, that discretion is nevertheless limited by         of the Group of the European Liberal Democratic and
    the duty to have regard to the interests of the service, to      Reformist Party, challenges the decision of the European
     accommodate as far as possible the interests of the             Parliament to terminate his indefinite contract, which was
     official and to comply with the relevant legal provisions       taken following a decision of the Bureau of the ELDR
     and principles . In the present case, the applicant was         Group, which gave as its reason that group's results in the
     praised and received expressions of appreciation, in            elections of June 1994 .
     flattering terms, during the years in which he performed
     the duties of CEO Project Manager; in those
     circumstances, the conduct of his superiors is at the very      According to the letter communicating the contested
     least inconsistent. The applicant further points out that       decision to the applicant, his dismissal was the result of the
     he was not assigned to another post, but simply left            reduction in the number of ELDR members after the
     without any clearly defined duties . From any point of          elections . In addition, as the internal composition of the
     view, the removal of the applicant from his post is both        group had changed, it had been found necessary to
     manifestly unjust and ill-founded.                              restructure its secretariat 'on a geographical basis'.
                                                                     The applicant points first to the absence of any reasons given
                                                                     in the contested decision .
                                                                     He also alleges disregard of the internal prior reconciliation
Action brought on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale                  procedure provided for in Article 11 of the Recruitment
                against the European Parliament                       Rules of the Bureau of the Parliament, which applies to 'any
                        ( Case T-123/95 )                             procedure for the termination of the contract of a member of
                          ( 95/C 229/46 )                             the temporary staff . Under that procedure, the Parliament
                                                                      is obliged to give the Staff Committee advance notice of the
                                                                      forthcoming dismissal of the applicant, in order to place the
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      committee in a position to hear his views and make
                                                                      approaches to the relevant appointing authority.
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision is
Communities on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale, a                   vitiated for manifest error and misuse of powers, since the
former member of the temporary staff of the European                  geographical reason is invalid . Even if the ELDR Group did
Parliament, resident at Messina ( Italy ), represented by             have one member less than before the 1994 elections, the
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio,           number of Italian members nevertheless rose from three to
 of the Bar of Reggio di Calabria, with an address for service        seven. After the elections, France, with only one member in
 in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue              the ELDR Group, had four staff members; Germany, with
 Glesener .                                                           no member in the group, had two staff members; whilst
                                                                      Italy, which went from three members of the group to seven,
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          had its staff participation reduced by one-third, with three
                                                                       staff members cut to two .
 — declare unlawful the termination of the indefinite
      temporary contract between the applicant and the                 It therefore follows that, far from equilibrium having been
      European Parliament ( Group of the European Liberal              restored, a disequilibrium has been created .
      Democratic and Reformist Party ( the ELDR Group ));
      consequently annul such termination, ordering the
      reinstatement of the applicant; order the European
      Parliament ( ELDR Group ) to pay all salary and benefits


title: Case C-564/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2016 — Raffinerie Heide GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany — Rejection of the registration of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances — Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ — Implementing powers of the Commission)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/7

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2016 — Raffinerie Heide GmbH v European Commission
      (Case C-564/14 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany - Rejection of the registration of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances - Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ - Implementing powers of the Commission))
      (2016/C 454/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Raffinerie Heide GmbH (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Eckart, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. White and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Raffinerie Heide GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 33, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-357/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad, Bulgaria lodged on 7 September 2009 — Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v Direktsia Migratsia pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/46

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad, Bulgaria lodged on 7 September 2009 — Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
   (Case C-357/09)
   2009/C 267/79
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shamilovich Kadzoev

      Defendant: Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti Saïd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals be interpreted as meaning that

                           (a)

                           where the national law of the Member State did not provide for a maximum period of detention or grounds for extending such detention before the transposition of the requirements of that Directive and, on transposition of the Directive, no provision was made for conferring retroactive effect on the new provisions, the requirements of the Directive only apply and cause the period to start to run from their transposition into the national law of the Member State?

                           (b)

                           within the periods laid down for detention in a specialised facility with a view to removal within the meaning of the Directive, no account is to be taken of the period during which the implementation of a removal decision from the Member State under an express provision was suspended owing to a pending request for asylum by a third-country national, where during that procedure he continued to remain in that specialised detention facility if the national law of the Member State so permits?

               2.

               Must Article 15 (5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC […] be interpreted as meaning that within the periods laid down for detention in a specialised facility with a view to removal within the meaning of that Directive no account is to be taken of the period during which implementation of a removal decision from the Member State was suspended under an express provision on the ground that an appeal against that decision is pending, even though during the period of that procedure the third-country national has continued to stay in that specialised detention facility, where he did not have valid identity documents and there is therefore some doubt as to his identity or where he does not have any means of supporting himself or where he has demonstrated aggressive conduct?

               3.

               Must Article 15 (4) of Directive 2008/115/EC […] be interpreted as meaning that removal is not reasonably possible where:

                           (a)

                           at the time when a judicial review of the detention is conducted, the State of which the person is a national has refused to issue him with a travel document for his return and until then there was no agreement with a third country in order to secure the person’s entry there even though the administrative bodies of the Member State are continuing to make endeavours to that end?

                           (b)

                           at the time when a judicial review of the detention is conducted there was an agreement for readmission between the European Union and the State of which the person is a national, but, owing to the existence of new evidence, namely the person’s birth certificate, the Member State did not refer to the provisions of that agreement, if the person concerned does not wish to return?

                           (c)

                           the possibilities of extending the detention periods provided for in Article 15(6) of the Directive have been exhausted in the situation where no agreement for readmission has been reached with the third country at the time when a judicial review of his detention is conducted, regard being had to Article 15(6)(b) of the Directive?

               4.

               Must Article 15(4) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC be interpreted as meaning that if at the time when the detention with a view to removal of the person concerned to a third country is reviewed there is found to be no reasonable ground for removing him and the grounds for extending his detention have been exhausted, in such a case:

                           (a)

                           it is none the less not appropriate to order his immediate release if the following conditions are all met: the person concerned does not have valid identity documents, whatever the duration of their validity, with the result that there is a doubt as to his identity, he is aggressive in his conduct, he has no means of supporting himself and there is no third person who has undertaken to provide for his subsistence?

                           (b)

                           with a view to the decision on release it must be assessed whether, under the provisions of the national law of the Member State, the third-country national has the resources necessary to stay in the Member State as well as an address at which he may reside?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 1999 in Case T-114/99: CSR Pampryl SA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 — Registration of a designation of origin — "Pays d'Auge/Pays d'Auge-Cambremer" — Inadmissible)

text:
5.2.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/23
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Flavia Angeletti
                                                                         and A. Van Meuter against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
                      of 9 November 1999
in Case T-114/99: CSR Pampryl SA v Commission of the                                             (Case T-247/99)
                   European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 —                                             (2000/C 34/45)
Registration of a designation of origin — ‘Pays d’Auge/Pays
              d’Auge-Cambremer’ — Inadmissible)
                          (2000/C 34/44)                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Flavia Ange-
In Case T-114/99: CSR Pampryl SA, whose registered office is             letti and A. Van Meuter, with Mauro Cimino, of the Fermo Bar,
in La Courneuve, France, represented by Dominique Couturier-             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Heller, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                 Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix
de Bourbon, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: José Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Xavier Lewis) —            The applicants claim that the Court should:
application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 378/1999 of 19 February 1999 supplementing the Annex
to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names              — annul the following decisions of the appointing authority:
in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and
protected geographical indications’ provided for in Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographi-              1. No 2161 of 12 September 1999 concerning the response
cal indications and designations of origin for agricultural                   to the complaint submitted by Flavia Angeletti, and
products and foodstuffs (OJ 1999 L 46, p. 13) in so far as it
registers the names ‘Pays d’Auge/Pays d’Auge-Cambremer’ as
a protected designation of origin — the Court of First Instance          2. No 1979 of 26 July 1999 concerning the response to the
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,                       complaint submitted by André Van Meuter.
C.W. Bellamy and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
made an order on 9 November 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:
1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible;                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2. It is unnecessary to adjudicate on the application for leave to       By the present action, it is sought to obtain an order directing
     intervene made by the French Republic;                              the Commission to take certain urgent measures and to
                                                                         compensate the applicants for the damage suffered as a result
3. The applicant shall bear its own costs and also those incurred by     of working in the Berlaymont Building which previously
     the Commission;                                                     accommodated 1 237 tons of asbestos and 10 664 tons of
                                                                         asbestos fill by way of insulating material.
4. The party which applied for leave to intervene shall bear its own
     costs.
                                                                         The applicants put forward various factual arguments which,
                                                                         in their view, demonstrate negligent management on the part
                                                                         of the authorities responsible for dealing with the asbestos
                                                                         problem in the Berlaymont Building.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.


title: Case C-581/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 16 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Nicola Turco

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 16 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Nicola Turco
   (Case C-581/16)
   (2017/C 195/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Salerno

      Party to the main proceedings

   Nicola Turco
   By order of 4 April 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) held that:

               1.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 2005 in Case T-160/03 AFCon Management Consultants and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Tacis Programme — Invitation to tender — Irregularities in the tendering procedure — Action for damages)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 17 March 2005
   in Case T-160/03 AFCon Management Consultants and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Tacis Programme - Invitation to tender - Irregularities in the tendering procedure - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 132/46)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-160/03: AFCon Management Consultants, established in Bray (Ireland), Patrick Mc Mullin, resident in Bray, Seamus O'Grady, resident in Bray, represented by B. O'Connor, solicitor, and I. Carreño, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Enegren and F. Hoffmeister, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of irregularities in the tendering procedure for a project financed by the Tacis programme (‘Project FDRUS 9902 — Agricultural extension services in South Russia’) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay AFCon the sum of EUR 48 605, together with interest thereon from delivery of this judgment until full payment. The rate of interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European Central Bank's rate for its main refinancing operations, in force during the period concerned, plus two percentage points. The amount of interest is to be calculated on the basis of compound interest;

               2.

               Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-243/13: Action brought on 30 April 2013 — ICT v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/39

         Action brought on 30 April 2013 — ICT v Commission
   (Case T-243/13)
   2013/C 171/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA (ICT) (Borgo a Mozzano, Italy) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case C-25/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Sió-Eckes kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 — Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products — Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 — Aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables — Processed products — Peaches in syrup and/or in natural fruit juice — Finished products)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Sió-Eckes kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-25/09) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 - Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products - Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 - Aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables - Processed products - Peaches in syrup and/or in natural fruit juice - Finished products)
   2010/C 100/10
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sió-Eckes kft.

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) — Interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (OJ 1996 L 297, p.29), of Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14) and Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2320/89 of 28 July 1989 on minimum quality requirements for peaches in syrup and peaches in natural fruit juice for the application of the production aid scheme (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 54) — Peach pulp produced in the context of the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables — Applicability of that aid scheme to peach pulp presented in a way not provided for under Regulation (EEC) No 2320/89, and to semi-finished products resulting from the separate phases of peach processing and intended for subsequent processing

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 386/2004 of 1 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that a product which is covered by one of the CN codes listed in Annex I to that regulation, as amended, including CN code 2008 70 92, and which corresponds to the definition ‘peaches in syrup and/or in natural fruit juice’, within the meaning of that regulation, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables, as amended by Regulation No 386/2004, and with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2320/89 of 28 July 1989 laying down minimum quality requirements for peaches in syrup and/or in natural fruit juice under the production aid scheme, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 996/2001 of 22 May 2001, qualifies for the aid scheme referred to in that provision.

               2.

               The product obtained at the end of each different stage of processing of peaches may be regarded as being a finished product for the purposes of Regulations Nos 2201/96 and 1535/2003, as amended, provided that it has the characteristics set out in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1535/2003, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-250/15: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vivium SA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Insufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/11

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vivium SA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-250/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Insufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vivium SA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) by decision of 13 May 2015 (Case C-250/15) is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-114/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy, formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy (Approximation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Meaning of "waste" — Production residue — Mine — Use — Storage — Article 2(1)(b) — Meaning of "other legislation" — National legislation outside the framework of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC)

text:
1.11.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 264/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             mentioned in that provision, if it relates to the management of
                                                                                that waste as such within the meaning of Article 1(d) of
                                                                                Directive 75/442, and if it results in a level of protection of the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                           environment at least equivalent to that aimed at by that
                                                                                directive, whatever the date of its entry into force.
                       of 11 September 2003
                                                                              (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
in Case C-114/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy,
             formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Approximation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/
156/EEC — Meaning of ‘waste’ — Production residue —                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
Mine — Use — Storage — Article 2(1)(b) — Meaning
of ‘other legislation’ — National legislation outside the                                            of 18 September 2003
   framework of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC)
                                                                              in Case C-125/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Peter Pflücke v Bundesanstalt
                           (2003/C 264/10)                                                                für Arbeit (1)
                                                                              (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer —
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                              Guarantee of payment of outstanding salary — National
                                                                              provision laying down a two-month time-limit for lodging
                                                                              applications for payment and providing for an extension of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                that time-limit)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-114/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by                                            in the European Court Reports)
AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy, formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy,
on the interpretation of Articles 1(a) and 2(1)(b) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975                        In Case C-125/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC                     EC by the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) for a preliminary
of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Court                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                  Peter Pflücke and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpret-
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken                 ation of Article 9 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 Octo-
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                       ber 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               States relating to the protection of employees in the event of
has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it has                    the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), the
ruled:                                                                        Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
                                                                              the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
                                                                              teur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
1.    In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the       General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Sep-
      holder of leftover rock and residual sand from ore-dressing             tember 2003, in which it has ruled:
      operations from the operation of a mine discards or intends to
      discard those substances, which must consequently be classified
                                                                              1.    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
      as waste within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                                approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive                     protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
      91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, unless he uses them lawfully                     employer does not preclude the application of a time-limit laid
      for the necessary filling in of the galleries of that mine and
                                                                                down by national law for the lodging of an application by an
      provides sufficient guarantees as to the identification and actual
                                                                                employee seeking to obtain, in accordance with the detailed
      use of the substances to be used for that purpose.                            rules laid down in that directive, a compensation payment in
                                                                                respect of outstanding salary claims resulting from his
2.    In so far as it does not constitute a measure of application of               employer’s insolvency, provided that the time-limit is no less
      Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and in                      favourable than those governing similar domestic applications
      particular Article 11 of that directive, national legislation must            (principle of equivalence) and is not framed in such a way as to
      be regarded as ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of                      render impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by
      Article 2(1)(b) of that directive covering a category of waste                Community law (principle of effectiveness);


title: Case T-160/11: Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Petroci v Council

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/26

         Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Petroci v Council
   (Case T-160/11)
   2011/C 139/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Petroci Holding (Abidjan, Ivory Coast) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 2011/18/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 imposing restrictive measures against certain persons and entities including Petroci Holding;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical with or similar to those raised in Case T-142/11 SIR v Council.


title: Case C-343/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisances — Treatment of urban waste water — Articles 3 and 4)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-343/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisances - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3 and 4)
   2011/C 179/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ L 135, p. 40)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure that:

                           —

                           urban waste water from the agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 of Valle de Güimar, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Valle de la Orotava, Arenys de Mar, Alcossebre and Cariño is collected in conformity with Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, and

                           —

                           urban waste water from the agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 of Arroyo de la Miel, Arroyo de la Víbora, Estepota (San Pedro de Alcántara), Alhaurín el Grande, Coín, Barbate, Chipiona, Isla Cristina, Matalascañas, Nerja, Tarifa, Torrox Costa, Vejer de la Frontera, Gijón-Este, Llanes, Valles de Güimar, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Los Llanos de Aridane, Arenys de Mar, Pineda de Mar, Ceuta, Alcossebre, Benicarló, Elx (Arenales), Peñíscola, Teulada Moraira (Rada Moraira), Vinaròs, A Coruña, Cariño, Tui, Vigo, Aguiño-Carreira-Ribeira, Baiona, Noia, Santiago, Viveiro and Irán (Hondarribia) is treated in conformity with Article 4(1), (3) and, where applicable (4), of Directive 91/271,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the cited provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-174/04: Action brought on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., against the Council of the European Union

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/16

         Action brought on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-174/04)
   (2004/C 179/32)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., Roman, Romania, represented by Mr A.L. Merckx, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 235/2004 of 10 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Romania in so far as it concerns imports into the European Community of products manufactured by Petrotub S.A. and Republica S.A (1).

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested regulation was adopted by the Council in an effort to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 9 January 2003 in case C-76/00 P. This judgment set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98 Petrotub and Republica v. Council (2) and annulled Council Regulation (EC) No. 2320/1997 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel in so far as it concerned Petrotub S.A. and Republica S.A.
   In support of its application the applicant submits that the Council has exceeded its discretionary power under Article 233 EC by implementing the judgment in a way that infringes Articles 6 paragraphs 1 and 9 and 2 paragraph 11 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3). More particularly, the applicant contends that Article 6 paragraph 9 was infringed since the contested regulation was adopted on the basis of the initial investigation even though more than 15 months had elapsed since its initiation. Further, Article 6 paragraph 1 was infringed in that the anti-dumping measures adopted were no longer based on information relating to a period of at least six months immediately prior to the initiation of proceedings. The applicant also contends that the contested regulation does not contain adequate motivation as to why the first two methods of calculation of the dumping margin, provided for in Article 2 paragraph 11 of Regulation No 384/96, were rejected in favour of the third method. On this basis the applicant claims that the contested regulation also infringed Article 2 paragraph 11 of Regulation No 384/1996 as well as Article 253 EC.

      (1)  OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 12.

      (2)  [1999] ECR-II 3837.

      (3)  OJ L 56 , 6.3.1996, p. 1.


title: Case C-314/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2011 by the European Commission against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-320/09 Planet AE v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/12

         Appeal brought on 24 June 2011 by the European Commission against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-320/09 Planet AE v Commission
   (Case C-314/11 P)
   2011/C 238/18
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and D. Triantafyllou)

      Other party to the proceedings: Planet AE

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court of 13 April 2011 in Case Τ-320/09;

               —

               Declare the action to be inadmissible;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   —   Misinterpretation of Decision 2008/969
   The form in which the respondent was registered on the EWS, which (as distinct from other forms of registration) is based on mere suspicions, has no consequences other than reinforced monitoring measures (Article 16 of the Decision) which have no binding force vis-a -vis the respondent. The registrations at issue are erroneously confused in the order with other forms of registration, the consequences of which are different.
   —   The contested registrations caused no real change in legal situation
   Mere monitoring of the person registered manifestly does not by itself change his legal situation.
   —   The respondent is not directly affected by the contested registrations
   Such measures as were taken were decided on within the discretion of the competent authorising officer and subsequent to consultation and negotiation with the respondent and its bank. The measures are not direct and automatic consequences of the registrations. Direct effect is however an essential condition for admissibility (Article 263(4) TFEU).
   —   Failure to examine the relevant pleas and evidence in relation to indirect effect
   While the action described the abovementioned consultations and negotiations, the General Court disregarded them and thereby was in breach of the principles of impartiality and objectivity.
   —   Failure to state reasons
   The decision under appeal does not explain the nature of the ‘deterioration’ in the position of the applicant, who was not deprived of any economic advantage, but relieved of the obligation to transfer payments.
   Τhe same is true of the consequences of the particular registrations at issue, the binding effect of which is nowhere explained.
   —   Confusion of legal remedies
   The position of the respondent in the consortium is relevant to the form of the contract. As an inseparable part of the contractual framework that could be the subject matter of a contractual dispute (Article 272 TFEU) but not of an application for annulment, since the legal remedies in question have parallel and autonomous validity.
   —   Breach of contractual freedom and the principle of consent
   First, the Commission is not obliged to enter into a contract without taking any precautions, secondly, the respondent agreed to the final contractual framework. Consequently, the General Court erred in seeking legal bases, hearings etc. which are required in cases of ‘penalties’ and are inconsistent with the equal status of the contracting parties.
   —   Incorrect characterisation of the registrations as decisions
   The EWS registrations constitute internal measures, precautionary measures consistent with the principle of sound financial management (Article 27 of the Financial Regulation) which were established in the said Decision 2008/969 as an internal rule of the Commission (see Article 51 of the Financial Regulation) for the information of and use by all delegated authorising officers of that institution. The registrations at issue should not be linked, moreover, with the registrations which lead to exclusion from procedures, since in the present case the contract was concluded with the respondent.
   —   Linking the admissibility of the action to the question whether it is well-founded
   The General Court justifies its order by the need to review the competence of the Commission to issue Decision 2008/969. However, the question of competence is relevant to whether the action is well-founded and cannot determine whether it is admissible.


title: Case T-297/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — Buzzi Unicem v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Principle of sound administration  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission
   (Case T-297/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))
   2014/C 135/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Buzzi Unicem SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Gencarelli, L. Malferrari and C. Hödlmayer, and subsequently by: L. Malferrari and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and M. Merola, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2356 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Buzzi Unicem SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Joined Cases C-14/15 and C-116/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Automated data exchange — Registration of vehicles — Dactyloscopic data — Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Secondary legal basis — Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures — Consultation of the European Parliament — Initiative of a Member State or of the European Commission — Voting rules)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-14/15 and C-116/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Automated data exchange - Registration of vehicles - Dactyloscopic data - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures - Consultation of the European Parliament - Initiative of a Member State or of the European Commission - Voting rules))
   (2016/C 419/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

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

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/731/EU of 9 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Malta, Council Decision 2014/743/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data (VRD) in Cyprus, Council Decision 2014/744/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Estonia, and Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decisions 2014/731, 2014/743, 2014/744 and 2014/911 until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them;

               3.

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

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

      OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case C-321/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/14/EC — Informing and consulting employees — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-321/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/14/EC - Informing and consulting employees - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 183/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-160/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2015 — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2015 — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others
   (Case C-160/15)
   (2015/C 205/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GS Media BV

      Defendants: Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekke

      Questions referred

               1(a)

               If anyone other than the copyright holder refers by means of a hyperlink on a website controlled by him to a website which is managed by a third party and is accessible to the general internet public, on which the work has been made available without the consent of the rightholder, does that constitute a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1)?

               1(b)

               Does it make any difference if the work was also not previously communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?

               1(c)

               Is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the lack of consent by the rightholder for the placement of the work on the third party’s website mentioned in 1(a) above and, as the case may be, of the fact that the work has also not previously been communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?

               2(a)

               If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative: in that case, is there, or could there be deemed to be, a communication to the public if the website to which the hyperlink refers, and thus the work, is indeed findable for the general internet public, but not easily so, with the result that the publication of the hyperlink greatly facilitates the finding of the work?

               2(b)

               In answering question 2(a), is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the fact that the website to which the hyperlink refers is not easily findable by the general internet public?

               3.

               Are there other circumstances which should be taken into account when answering the question whether there is deemed to be a communication to the public if, by means of a hyperlink, access is provided to a work which has not previously been communicated to the public with the consent of the rightholder?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 201 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-602/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contractual relationship between a seller or a supplier and a consumer — Mortgage contract — Default interest clause — Early repayment clause — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Moderation of the amount of interest — Powers of the national court)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/2

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García
   (Case C-602/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contractual relationship between a seller or a supplier and a consumer - Mortgage contract - Default interest clause - Early repayment clause - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Moderation of the amount of interest - Powers of the national court))
   (2015/C 320/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

      Defendant: Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national provisions for moderating default interest under a mortgage contract, provided that those national provisions:

                           —

                           do not prejudice to the assessment by the national court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings relating to that contract on the ‘unfairness’ of the default interest clause, and

                           —

                           do not prevent that court setting aside that clause should it conclude that the latter clause is ‘unfair’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.

               2)

               Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national court has established the ‘unfairness’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 of a clause in a contract between a consumer and a seller or a supplier, the fact that that clause has not been executed cannot, in itself, prevent the national court drawing the appropriate conclusions from the ‘unfair’ nature of that clause.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.