title: Case C-427/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
C 3/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.1.2002
Question 1                                                             Must Directive 87/102/EEC (1) and Directive 90180/EEC (2) be
                                                                       interpreted as having as their sole purpose consumer protec-
When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for          tion or, as aiming, beyond that, at the organization and
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council               regulation of the single market in credit?
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 (1) on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award          Must the obligation to interpret those directives in conformity
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by             with their purpose, and at least in way protective of consumers,
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992(2), is the ‘body respon-           prompt the national court to prefer an interpretation of its law
sible for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8)        that would allow it to raise, of its own motion, issues of
of Directive 89/665/EEC required to take into account the              irregularity affecting consumer credit agreements, such as a
prospects of success of an application for an unlawful decision        failure to indicate in writing the percentage rate of charge, in
of a contracting authority to be set aside pursuant to                 actions for payment of a debt brought before it by credit
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?                                     institutions?
Question 2
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
                                                                           approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for              visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council                   L 42 of 12.2.1987, p. 48).
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-                (2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
relating to the application of review procedures to the award              lations and administrative provisions of the Member States
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by                 concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, is the ‘body responsible
for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of
Directive 89/665/EEC entitled to take into account the pros-
pects of success of an application for an unlawful decision of
a contracting authority to be set aside pursuant to
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.                                               gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
                                                                       case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti v
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                                                                                (Case C-427/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/28)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 19 October
2001 in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         Christian Giner                               European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                       (Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 30 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                         (Case C-426/01)
                                                                       case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti. v
                                                                       Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour Office) on the follow-
                          (2002/C 3/27)                                ing questions:
                                                                       1.     Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
                                                                              ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
                                                                              between the European Economic Community and Turkey
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        to be interpreted as meaning that there is also a restriction
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance                   on the freedom to provide services where a Member State
(District Court), Vienne, of 19 October 2001, received at the                 of the Community abolishes an existing work permit
Court Registry on 29 October 2001 for a preliminary ruling                    exemption for Turkish drivers engaged in international
in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner                    haulage who are employed by a (Turkish) employer with
on the following questions:                                                   its seat in Turkey?
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/19
2.   Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom           2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, in light of the
     to provide services or does it also or solely concern                   considerations set out in the grounds hereof can the
     conditions of access to employment within the meaning                   transitional rules under examination come within the
     of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association                    provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey?                                             3.    If the answer to Question 2 is negative, in light of the
                                                                             general principles of Community law and in particular
                                                                             those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can the tran-
3.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association                    sitional rules under examination be deemed compatible
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                         with the EC Treaty and the Community legal order?
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey also to be applied to Turkish
     employees of an employer with its seat in Turkey who,
     as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international
     haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the
     Community without belonging to the (legitimate) labour
     force of that Member State?
4.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
     of the Association between the European Economic                  Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) by judgment of 2 November
     Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting               2001 in the case of Philippe Mertens against État belge
     a Member State of the Community in general from
     introducing national provisions which, in comparison
     with the position under national law on 1 December                                         (Case C-431/01)
     1980, lay down new restrictions on access to the
     employment market for Turkish workers, or does that
     provision prohibit the introduction of new restrictions                                      (2002/C 3/30)
     only in respect of the employment or continued employ-
     ment of workers who were already legally resident and
     employed in Germany before the entry into force of the
     new restriction?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 2 November 2001 of the
                                                                       Cour d’appel de Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) (Court of
                                                                       Appeal, Mons, 6th fiscal chamber), received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 7 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of Philippe Mertens against État belge (Belgian State), on
                                                                       the following question:
Reference. for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of 15 October
    2001 in the case of Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA                   Does Article 39 and/or Article 43 of the Treaty establishing
                                                                       the European Community preclude legislation by a Member
                        (Case C-428/01)                                State under which, for assessment to tax of individuals, a
                                                                       business loss suffered in that Member State by an individual
                                                                       residing in that Member State in the course of a previous
                          (2002/C 3/29)                                period of assessment may be deducted from the profit of that
                                                                       individual for a subsequent period of assessment, only to the
                                                                       extent that the business loss may not be set off against
                                                                       emoluments relating to that earlier period of assessment
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 arising from a salaried activity carried on by that individual in
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District            another Member State, and if the business loss thus set off may
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court            be deducted neither in that Member State nor in the other
of 15 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry           State from the taxable income of that individual for assessment
on 31 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            to tax of individuals, although if the individual had carried on
Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA on the following questions:               his salaried activity in the same Member State as that in which
                                                                       he carries on the self-employed activity, the business losses
                                                                       could be properly and lawfully deducted from the taxable
1.   On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may                 income of that individual?
     transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
     of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
     and come within the scope of the prohibition under
     Article 87 EC?


C 35/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                    7.2.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-124/03 (1)                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-161/03: Cascades S.A. v Commission of the European
                         (2004/C 35/37)                                   Communities.
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the register of Case T-124/03: AES Drax Power Limited v
Commission of the European Communities.                                          Removal from the register of Case T-243/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/40)
(1) OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the First
       Removal from the register of Case T-127/03 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2004/C 35/38)                                   T-243/03: Guardant, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.
By order of 7 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-127/03: Antoinette Pascucci v Europol.
(1) OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.                                                      Removal from the register of Case T-244/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/41)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case T-161/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/39)                                   By order of 15 October 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                          T-244/03: Flavia Angeletti v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
By order of 4 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    (1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case C-130/08: Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-130/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/68)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Action brought on 15 April 1997 by Pierre Tomarchio against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Case T-113/97)

text:
No C 199/28          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Fifth, the Commission misused its powers by basing its
                                                                   decision on irrelevant considerations and motives of a
                                                                   political nature .
The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, USA, has developed a veterinary medicinal
product called Sometribove which is classified as a                Finally, the Commission's decision infringed a number of
Recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin ( BST). Prior to                  agreements approved by the European Community under
marketing this product, the applicant was required to              the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
obtain a marketing authorization from the EC Committee             negotiations . The Commission's decision is capable of
for Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP). Before such             being reviewed against these standards and such a review
an authorization was obtained, Council Regulation ( EEC )          indicates that the decision itself is incompatible with the
No 2377/90 was adopted, establishing a Community                   terms of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on the
procedure for the setting of minimum residue limits                Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures .
( MRLs ) for veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
animal origin.
After the adoption of this Regulation, it became necessary
for the applicant to obtain a listing of Sometribove under
one of the Annexes to Council Regulation No 2377/90                Action brought on 15 April 1997 by Pierre Tomarchio
before a marketing authorization could be approved. An             against the Court of Auditors of the European
application for an MRL was made by the applicant                                                Communities
through the procedure established under that regulation .
By decision of 14 January 1997, the Commission rejected                                      ( Case T-l 13/97
the applicant's request that its case should be referred to                                    ( 97/C 199/74 )
the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress
on the grounds that, by virtue of Council Decision 94/936/
EC, the marketing and administration of BST to dairy                               (Language of the case: French)
cows could not be authorized and that, therefore, the
applicant had no interest in obtaining an MRL. The
moratorium introduced by Council Decision 94/936/EC                An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
was the principal ground for the Commission 's arriving at         Communities was brought before the Court of First
its decision .
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 April 1997
                                                                   by Pierre Tomarchio, residing in Luxembourg, represented
                                                                   by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicant claims the Commission decision should be             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
annulled on the following grounds:                                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
First, the Commission infringed the proper Community               The applicant claims that the Court should:
procedure for setting MRLs when it rejected the
applicant's case for inclusion of Sometribove in one of the
Annexes to Council Regulation No 2377/90 .                         — annul the decision of 21 June 1996 rejecting the
                                                                        applicant's request that consideration be given to the
                                                                        possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Second, in so deciding, the Commission in fact acted in a
                                                                        Regulations,
manner inconsistent with the principles of the
moratorium . In particular, the decision prevents the
applicant from conducting limited practical tests on the
                                                                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
effects of BST products .
                                                                        27 December 1996 rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Third, the applicant maintains that, in arriving at its
decision, the Commission infringed the principle of legal          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
certainty, which in turn infringed the applicant's legitimate
expectation that the conditions for the granting of an
MRL would be based on a scientific assessment of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
product .
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Fourth, the Commission infringed the principle of                   Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
 proportionality when adopting the present decision . The
 interference with the applicant's commercial activities as a       (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
 result of the Commission's decision is disproportionate to
 any benefit that might be achieved by refusing to approve
the product under one of the Annexes referred to above .


title: Case C-278/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania)) — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Supply — Technical specifications — Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency — Reference to a product of a particular brand — Assessment of the equivalence of the product offered by a tenderer — Reference product no longer in production)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania)) — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia
   (Case C-278/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Supply - Technical specifications - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency - Reference to a product of a particular brand - Assessment of the equivalence of the product offered by a tenderer - Reference product no longer in production))
   (2015/C 198/19)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL

      Defendant: Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(8) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, is not applicable to a public contract with a value below the threshold for application laid down by that directive. In the context of a public contract not subject to that directive but which has certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority cannot reject a tender which satisfies the requirements of the contract notice on grounds which are not set out in that notice.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-236/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regional parliament — Lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission
   (Case T-236/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regional parliament - Lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 142/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) (represented by: S. Laskowski and J. Caspar)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the Commission decisions of 10 March and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to document SEK(2005) 420 of 22 March 2005, containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or data on public communications networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               It is not necessary to rule on the applications to intervene;

               3.

               Landtag Schleswig-Holstein shall bear its own costs and pay the Commission's costs, except those relating to the applications to intervene;

               4.

               Landtag Schleswig-Holstein, the Commission, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-280/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 27 June 2001, in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against 1) First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA

text:
C 289/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.10.2001
‘Is the grant, by the owner of premises (“the Siteholder”) to an               inconsistent findings of fact, or can it only be based on
owner of a cigarette vending machine, of the right to install,                 possible incompatible holdings of law?
operate and maintain the machine in the premises for a period
of two years, in a place nominated by the Siteholder, in return
for a percentage of the gross profits of the sales of cigarettes
and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no other               (3) If proceedings have been brought in the Courts of a
significant rights of possession or control than those set out in              Contracting State against a Defendant domiciled in that
the written agreement between the parties, capable of amount-                  State for a claim in a matter relating to contract, does
ing to the letting of immovable property with the meaning of                   Article 6(1) permit the Claimant to join as an additional
Article 13(b) of Council Directive No 77/388/EEC (1) of the                    Defendant a person domiciled in another Contracting
17th day of May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of                       State against whom his claim amounts to a matter relating
the Member States relating to turnover taxes; and what are                     to tort, delict or quasi-delict and not a matter relating to
the principles applicable in deciding whether an agreement                     contract, where (unless such a conclusion is precluded by
amounts to the letting of immovable property within such                       the different legal nature of the two claims) the national
meaning?’                                                                      Court is satisfied that the connection between the claims
                                                                               against the two Defendants is of such a kind that it is
                                                                               expedient to determine the claims together in order to
                                                                               avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 separate proceedings?
                                                                         (4) May the Claimant join the Second Defendant in reliance
                                                                               on Article 6(1) in the circumstances described in question
                                                                                3) above, where
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                     (a)   the first claim is under a contract for a package
of 27 June 2001, in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
                                                                                holiday under which the First Defendant, the orga-
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against                               niser or provider of the holiday, accepts responsi-
1) First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels                             bility for bodily injury to the Claimant caused by
                           Caledonia SA
                                                                                negligent acts or omissions of its agents, suppliers
                                                                                and sub-contractors and their servants and agents
                         (Case C-280/01)                                             whilst in the course of their employment, and
                         (2001/C 289/23)
                                                                               (b) the second claim is a claim in the tort of negligence
                                                                                against the Second Defendant, who is one of the First
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               Defendant’s agents suppliers or sub-contractors, and
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                              the claim is based upon the negligence of one or
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 27 June 2001, which was                        more of the Second Defendant’s employees or agents
received at the Court Registry on 16 July 2001, for a                                in the course of their employment?
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against 1) First
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA,
on the following questions:
(1) Is there a connection between claims which is sufficient to          (1) Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
      justify the application of Article 6(1) of the Convention (1)          enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ
      only where the risk of irreconcilable judgments can be                 1975 L 204, p. 28), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
      avoided altogether, or may it exist where it is possible by            1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      means of Article 6(1) to avoid that risk as regards                    the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
      judgments affecting the parties to the proceedings to                  1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the
      which Article 6(1) would apply although some risk of                   Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                             Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May
      irreconcilable judgments would remain as between those                 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
      proceedings, on the one hand, and a claim or claims                    Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1).
      involving one or some of those parties and one or more
      other parties, on the other hand?
(2) May a connection between claims which is sufficient to
      justify the application of Article 6(1) exist where the
      risk of irreconcilable judgments arises from possible


title: Case T-303/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polyblend v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/39

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polyblend v Commission
   (Case T-303/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/52)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Action brought on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-276/98)

text:
C 278/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
Ð Does Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of                     alternative forms of energy, tolls for crossing the Tagus
     14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award                   bridge in Lisbon and, finally, agricultural tools and
     of public supply contracts (1) still have an independent             implements, the Portuguese Republic has infringed
     meaning after the adoption of Council Directive 92/                  Article 12 and Article 28(2) of Council Directive 77/
     50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination                  388/EEC (1) (the sixth VAT Directive), as amended by
     of procedures for the award of public service                        Directive 92/77/EEC (2) on the approximation of VAT
     contracts (2) (as both amended by European Parliament                rates,
     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (3))?
Ð If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the              Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     provision accordingly mean that, where a contracting
     authority entrusts the administration of a pig
     eartagging scheme to a private undertaking which is              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     not a contracting authority, the contracting authority
     should stipulate, on the one hand, that the
     undertaking should comply with the prohibition
     against discrimination on the ground of nationality in           Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the sixth VAT Directive, as
     public supply contracts which the undertaking awards             amended by Directive 92/77/EEC, the Member States are
     to third parties and, on the other hand, that the                to apply a standard rate, which may not be less than
     procurement of goods linked to the scheme should be              15 %. As is clear from Article 12(3)(a) and (b), the
     put out to public tender if the value of the goods to be         Member States may apply either one or two reduced rates
     procured exceeds the threshold value in Directive 93/            to the transactions referred to in Annex H to Directive 92/
     36/EEC?                                                          77/EEC. By applying reduced rates to transactions not
                                                                      referred to in that Annex (wines, machines and equipment
                                                                      for exploiting alternative forms of energy and agricultural
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.                                         tools and implements) the Portuguese Republic has
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                      infringed Article 12.
(3) Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 13 October 1997, amending Directives 92/50/EEC,
    93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of
    procedures for the award of public service contracts, public
                                                                      As regards the tolls for crossing the Tagus bridge in
    supply contracts and public works contracts (OJ L 328,
    28.11.1997, p. 1).
                                                                      Lisbon, Article 28(2)(a) of the sixth Directive, in
                                                                      conjunction with subparagraph (d), does not, contrary to
                                                                      the view advanced by the Portuguese authorities, allow the
                                                                      introduction after 1 January 1991 of a new reduced rate
                                                                      at the time of withdrawal, at a later stage, of the reduced
                                                                      rate in force on that date.
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the               (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                (2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 1.
                        (Case C-276/98)
                         (98/C 278/56)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                     Action brought on 21 July 1998 by the French Republic
Communities, represented by Teresa Figueira and Enrico                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Traversa, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                                    (Case C-277/98)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   (98/C 278/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ð declare that, by keeping in force or introducing a                  the European Communities on 21 July 1998 by the French
     reduced rate of 5 % for the products listed in points            Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
     1.8, 2.11, 2.19 and 3.8 of Annex I to the Código do              Assistant Director for International Economic Law and
     IVA (VAT Code) (Decree-Law No 394-B/84 of                        Community Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
     26 December 1984, as amended by Law No 2/92 of                   Christina Vasak, Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
     9 March 1992 and by Law No 39-B/94 of                            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     27 December 1994), which relate, respectively, to                Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b boulevard
     wines, machines and equipment for exploiting                     Joseph II.


title: Case T-115/12: Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/7

         Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)
   (Case T-115/12)
   2012/C 157/12
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waldhauser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 January 2012 (Case No R 1907/2010-4) and reject the opposition brought by Roca Sanitario, SA, Av. Diagonal, 513, E-08029 Barcelona (Spain).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Roca’ for goods in Class 3 (application No 6 800 726)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roca Sanitario, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish trade marks ‘Roca’ (trade mark Nos 1 020 043, 2 543 451, 424 875 and 915 635) for certain goods in Classes 19 and 21 and the international trade mark ‘Roca’ (trade mark No 905 212) for certain goods in Classes 11, 19, 20 and 21

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the Community trade mark application in respect of all the goods applied for

      Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case F-53/06: Action brought on  30 April 2006  — Claudia Gualtieri v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/27

         Action brought on 30 April 2006 — Claudia Gualtieri v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-53/06)
   (2006/C 154/63)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision adopted by the Director-General of Personnel and Administration on 30 January 2006 rejecting complaint No R/783/05, registered on 17 October 2005, seeking annulment of the decision adopted by the DG ADMIN, communicated on 5 September 2005, by which the applicant's claim that she was entitled to the full daily subsistence allowance was rejected;

               —

               annulment of the decision communicated on 5 September 2005;

               —

               annulment of all of the defendant's communications received each month relating to the determination of the allowance in question;

               —

               an order that the defendant pay the applicant, with effect from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2005, the daily subsistence allowance and the monthly allowance provided for by the Commission Decision on Seconded National Experts (SNEs);

               —

               in the alternative, an order that the defendant pay the applicant the abovementioned allowances with effect from 2 February 2005, the date of the applicant's de facto separation from her husband and the date when she ceased to live with him, or, in the further alternative, from the 4 July 2005, the date when the divorce petition was lodged with the District Court Brussels, until 31 December 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a national expert on secondment to the Commission, complains that it was unlawful to reduce to 25 % the daily subsistence allowance provided for under the rules on SNEs and to fail to pay the further monthly allowance also provided for under those rules.
   First of all, the applicant submits that in the documents preparatory to her taking up her appointment the allowances in question, being in the nature of pay, were expressly stated to be payable in full notwithstanding the fact that she had declared that she was married to an official of the European Union resident in Brussels. She adds that her employment contract was signed on 7 January 2004 on that basis and the conditions of remuneration could not be changed unilaterally.
   The applicant also alleges unlawfulness under Article 241 EC and the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Decision on SNEs. That provision discriminates in favour of individuals who opt for a non-marital relationship as against members of a lawful union. It also results in unequal treatment since it does not allow the applicant to receive additional remuneration on an equal footing with other SNEs, whether married or not. The provision in question infringes Article 14 of the Europen Convention on Human Rights, Articles 2, 3, 13 and 141 EC and Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. (1)

      (1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, page 22.


title: Case T-300/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/27

         Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
   (Case T-300/11)
   2011/C 238/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Otto GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Schäuble and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nalsani, SA (Bogota, Colombia)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2011 in Case R 1291/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nalsani, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 — application No 6 212 451

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative mark ‘OTTO’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The Board of Appeal focused on the wrong factors in assessing the visual similarity of the signs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 1999 in Case T-182/98: UPS Europe SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Letter from the Commission to a complainant - Act open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

text:
18.12.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 366/27
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 30 September 1999                                                       of 15 September 1999
in Case T-182/98: UPS Europe SA v Commission of the                         in Case T-11/99: Firma Léon Van Parys NV and Others v
                     European Communities (1)                                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Letter from the Commission to a complainant                    (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
          — Act open to challenge — Inadmissibility)                        Bananas — Action for annulment — Persons individually
                                                                            concerned — Restricted group of operators — Inadmissi-
                                                                                bility)
                           (1999/C 366/58)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/59)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-182/98: UPS Europe SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in              In Case T-11/99: Firma Léon Van Parys NV, established in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Loeff Claeys and Verbeke, 5                   Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific Fruit Company NV, established in
Rue Charles Martel v Commission of the European Communi-                    Antwerp, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg
ties (Agent: James Flett) — application for the annulment of                (Germany), and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established
the Commission’s letter of 2 October 1998 (Ref. D/54021) —                  in Rome, represented by Philippe Vlaemminck, Lode Van Den
the Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), compo-                    Hende and Julien Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address
sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and M.R. Garcı́a-                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch
Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,            & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
Registrar, has made an order on 30 September 1999, in which                 Communities (Agent: Hubert van Vliet) — application for
it:                                                                         annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                            28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
                                                                            tation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                               imports of bananas into the Community — the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,
                                                                            R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
2. orders the document produced as Annex 1 to the applicant’s               made an order on 15 September 1999, the operative part of
     observations on the plea of inadmissibility, lodged at the Registry    which is as follows:
     of the Court of First Instance on 18 February 1999, to be
     removed from the file in Case T-182/98;                                1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
3. dismisses the ancillary application for the remainder;                   2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and
                                                                                severally, the costs of the Commission, including those incurred
                                                                                in the proceedings for interim measures;
4. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third
     of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                                                                            3. There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic;
5. orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                            4. The Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic are to bear their
                                                                                own costs in relation to the proceedings for interim measures.
(1) OJ No C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 February 2003 in Case T-4/01, Renco SpA v Council of the European Union (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Tender specification — Statement of reasons for the decision to award the contract — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
C 112/28                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.5.2003
1.     There is no longer any need to give judgment on the actions for        1.     Dismisses the application;
       failure to act.
                                                                              2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the
2.     The Commission’s inaction between 1 January 2000 and                          Council.
       25 July 2001 is such as to render the Community liable.
3.     Within six months of the date of delivery of the present               (1 ) OJ C 79 of 10.3.01.
       judgment the parties shall inform the Court of the amount of
       damages which they claim, as agreed with the Commission.
4.     In the event of failure to agree the amount, the parties shall
       submit to the Court, within the same period, their calculations
       of the amount of damages attributable to the Commission’s
       inaction between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5.     The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.
                                                                               in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v European Parliament ( 1)
                                                                              (Officials — Open competition — Eliminating tests —
                                                                              Power of the selection board to change the minimum number
                                                                              of points required in the Notice of Competition — Tests of a
                                                                                comparative nature — Admissibility)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 112/53)
                          of 25 February 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-4/01, Renco SpA v Council of the European
                                Union ( 1)
                                                                              In Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen, a member of the temporary
                                                                              staff of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxem-
(Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Tender                        bourg) represented by J. Chocroun, lawyer, against the Euro-
specification — Statement of reasons for the decision to                      pean Parliament (Agents: J. F. de Wachter and D. Moore) —
award the contract — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-                     application, principally, for the annulment of the decision of
              contractual liability of the Community)                         the selection board in Competition EUR/A/151/98 refusing to
                                                                              allow the applicant to take part in the tests subsequent to Test
                            (2003/C 112/52)                                   VII.A.(d) of that competition and, in the alternative, a claim for
                                                                              compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered,
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                       (Language of the case: French)                         M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                              J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                              has given a judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
In Case T-4/01: Renco SpA, established in Milan (Italy)                       1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board in Competition EUR/
represented by D. Philippe and F. Apruzzi, lawyers, with an                          A/151/98 refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the                            tests subsequent to Test VII.A.(d) of that competition;
European Union (Agents: F. van Craeyenest, M. Arpio Santac-
ruz and J. Stuyck) — application for damage allegedly suffered                2.     Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the
by the applicant following the decision of the Council not to                        applicant’s costs, including those relating to the application for
award it the contract for invitation to tender No 107865                             interim measures.
issued on 30 July 1999 (OJ S 146) for refitting and general
maintenance of the Council’s buildings — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,                  (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.01.
and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 February 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-155/02: Action brought on 14 May 2002 by VVG International Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited and Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 191/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Furthermore, an amendment to the previous definition of
                                                                        cigars and cigarillos can also not be legally justified by reference
                                                                        to the Community law dimension of human health protection.
—     annul Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2002/10/EC of             In particular, adoption of the contested amendment is not
      12 February 2002 amending Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/               justified by Article 152(1) EC.
      80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the structure and rates
      of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco (1);
                                                                        In the alternative, the applicant claims that the derogation
—     in the alternative, annul subparagraph 1 of Article 4(2) of       provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of
      Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002                  Directive 2002/10/EC, which applies solely to the Federal
      amending Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/               Republic of Germany, unlawfully disturbs the internal market
      EC as regards the structure and rates of excise duty              by giving rise to distortions of competition, and is thereby in
      applied on manufactured tobacco, in so far as it applies          breach of Article 93 EC.
      only to Federal Republic of Germany and not to the other
      Member States and requires the Federal Republic of
      Germany to transpose the directive by 1 January 2008 at           (1) OJ L 46, 16.2.2002, p. 26.
      the latest;                                                       (2) Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes
                                                                            other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
                                                                            manufactured tobacco (OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 40).
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant sells cigarette and cigarillo products in Germany         Action brought on 14 May 2002 by VVG International
and other Member States, and manufactures, inter alia, specific         Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited
types of cigarillos. According to the applicant, its products           and Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
fundamentally differ from factory-manufactured cigarettes in              against the Commission of the European Communities
terms of both their quality and the production process. Under
the definition in the previous version of Directive 95/59/EC of
27 November 1995 (2), the goods produced by the applicant                                        (Case T-155/02)
were taxed as cigars or cigarillos.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/48)
Pursuant to the amended definition in the contested directive,
the goods produced by the applicant are no longer deemed to                                (Language of the case: German)
be cigars or cigarillos, but cigarettes. In consequence, all
Member States, with the exception of Germany, are required
to levy the minimum excise duty of 57 % of the retail selling
price, which applies to cigarettes, on the applicant’s products
instead of, as was previously the case, the minimum excise              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
duty of 5 % of the retail selling price applicable to cigars and        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
cigarillos. Consequently, in the Member States concerned, the           European Communities on 14 May 2002 by VVG International
applicant’s products are subject to a disproportionate increase         Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited and
in tobacco taxes.                                                       Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H., Vienna
                                                                        (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the adoption of the contested
amendment to the definition contravened the conditions for              The applicants claim that the Court should:
harmonisation of legislation laid down in Article 93 EC.
According to the applicant’s submission, its products do not
                                                                        —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of
belong to the same group of tobacco goods as cigarettes, nor
                                                                              27 March 2002 (1) and order the defendant to pay the
are they similar ’in many respects’ to a cigarette within the
                                                                              applicants costs;
meaning of the tenth recital in the preamble to the contested
directive. There is no distortion of competition in respect of
the applicant’s products because those products do not share            —     in the alternative, annul the contested regulation in so far
a market with cigarettes. The Council also acted in breach of                 as it includes product group 4 ‘alloy hot rolled flat
the prohibition on preventative harmonisation.                                products’ in the 15 product groups concerned;
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.8.2002
—     in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group          Furthermore, the Commission acted in breach of primary and
      ‘alloy hot rolled flat products’ to 468 000 tonnes (2001           secondary Community legislation, the principle of equal
      import volume);                                                    treatment and the WTO Agreement.
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
—     in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group              imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
      ‘alloy hot rolled flat products’ to 118 916 tonnes.                    certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft
                                                                         Voss mbH Stahlhandel and three other companies against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants are importers of steel products affected by the                                     (Case T-163/02)
contested regulation. That regulation opened tariff quotas in
respect of the importation of 15 products into the Community.
Imports of those products in excess of the volume laid down                                        (2002/C 191/49)
by the relevant tariff quota will incur additional customs
duties.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicants claim that the levels set for the free tariff quotas,     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in particular in respect of product group 4, cannot be                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reconciled with the recitals in the preamble to the regulation.          European Communities on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesell-
For product group 4 alone there is a shortfall of 95 129 tonnes.         schaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel, Planegg (Germany), Jepsen
No reason is given for why the tariff quotas set in the                  Stahl GmbH, Nittendorf (Germany), LNS-Lothar Niemeyer
regulation do not comply with the regulation’s aims, as                  Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, Essen (Germany) and Metal
determined by the defendant itself, or with its own formula for          Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented
the calculation of those quotas.                                         by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
In addition, the applicants submit that the statement of reasons
for the regulation is also defective in that in the recitals in the      —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of
preamble there is no examination whatever of the interests of                  27 March 2002 (1);
all market operators affected by the regulation. No reasons are
given for why the purported aim of the regulation can be                 —     declare that the defendant must pay compensation to the
achieved only by the measures set out therein, why only the                    applicants for the present and future damage suffered by
interests of Community manufacturers are protected while the                   them as a result of the nullity of Regulation (EC) No 560/
interests of other market actors are not take into account, or                 2002 of 27 March 2002;
why the measures adopted in the regulation took effect
immediately and without any vacatio legis. All those deficiencies        —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
in the statement of reasons constitute a material breach
of procedural requirements which renders the contested
regulation void.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicants import steel products from countries outside
The applicants additionally claim that the regulation pursues            the European Communities. They object to Commission
different aims to those stated in the preamble and that the              Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 and claim that the conditions
Commission misused its discretionary powers. The failure to              for the introduction of provisional safeguard measures within
observe the purported aim of ‘maintaining the current import             the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of
level plus 10 % thereof ’ is particularly clear evidence that            22 December 1994 (2), as the basic regulation on which the
other aims are being pursued.                                            contested regulation is based, are not met.


title: Case T-381/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/26

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council
   (Case T-381/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))
   (2016/C 279/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case F-43/16: Action brought on 18 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/31

         Action brought on 18 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-43/16)
   (2016/C 371/34)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Cornacchia, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision excluding the applicant from the competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 because he failed to inform EPSO of his family connection to a member of the selection board of that competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 19 May 2016, taken in response to the request for re-examination made by the applicant on 5 November 2015, by which the president of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 confirmed the decision to exclude him from that competition and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the appeal and the initial decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-190/99: Action brought on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/27
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                Guarantee Fund) (FOGASA), of the other part. Those agree-
                                                                        ments, which are based fundamentally on a reduction in the
The decision of the selection board to cancel certain of the            rate of interest normally applicable to loans granted by those
                                                                        two bodies, are intended to facilitate the scheduling and
questions in test (b), giving instructions to the markers not to
                                                                        deferment of repayment of the debts due to them.
take them into account and to readjust the weight attached to
the questions which remained valid on completion of that test,
altered the rules and the conditions which the selection                SNIACE considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a
board had itself originally laid down for the conduct of the            manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the alleged aid
competition.                                                            received by it does not constitute State aid, does not affect
                                                                        trace between Member States and does not distort or threaten
                                                                        to distort competition in the single market.
The grounds given for Decisions 21.06.99/IX.A2./023 and
IX.A.2 D(98)/500R-EL 501502 were insufficient.
                                                                        Second, the applicant undertaking maintains that it has acted
                                                                        in accordance with the rules in force in the Kingdom of Spain;
                                                                        those rules are applicable to all undertakings which find
                                                                        themselves in any of the situations specified therein, and not
                                                                        to any specific undertakings or sectors. Thus, the measures
                                                                        criticised by the Commission are, in reality, agreements
                                                                        concluded pursuant to the provisions of labour law and social
                                                                        security law. In particular, the recovery of debts owed by
Action brought on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A.                         undertakings to the Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    (General Social Security Treasury) in the event of non-payment
                                                                        of contributions is governed by the General Law on Social
                         (Case T-190/99)                                Security. It therefore involves measures of general application
                                                                        forming part of a system already in existence, in respect of
                                                                        which the Member States possess exclusive competence and
                        (1999/C 333/65)                                 on which the Commission has not expressed a view pursuant
                                                                        to Article 88(1) EC. In addition, as regards FOGASA, that body
                                                                        bears a responsibility for guaranteeing the payment of salaries
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       which forms an integral part of the essential provisions of
                                                                        contracts of employment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Lastly, the applicant states that the sole purpose of the alleged
European Communities on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A.,                  aid is to facilitate the recovery of labour-related debts and
established in Madrid, represented by Fernando Rodrı́guez               debts owed to the Social Security Treasury; consequently, it
Carretero, Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño Botella and José Luis          cannot be said that the criteria enabling it to be characterised
Baró Fuentes, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in        as State aid have been fulfilled, since it neither emanates from
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 2 Rue Dahlias.              State funds nor reduces the lever of those funds.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Article 1(a) and (b) of the decision of the Com-
    mission of 28 October 1998;
— annul Article 2 of the decision of the Commission of
                                                                        Action brought on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrigley
    28 October 1998 inasmuch as it requires the Kingdom of
                                                                        JR. Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    Spain to take the necessary measures to recover from the
                                                                                Internal Market
    recipient the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully
    made available to it;
                                                                                (Case T-193/99)
— order the European Commission to pay to SNIACE all
    of the costs incurred by the applicant in the present                                       (1999/C 333/66)
    proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action is directed against Commission Decision              Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998 on State aid implemented                 European Communities on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrig-
by Spain in favour of SNIACE SA (OJ 1999 L 149 of                       ley JR. Company, having its registered office in Chicago, USA,
16.6.1999, p. 40). The applicant undertaking, which is the              represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard Barth, Ulrich
recipient of the alleged aid, contests the categorisation as aid        Blumenröder, Christa Niklas-Falter and Maximillian Kinkeldey,
of the agreements concluded between that undertaking and                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
the Tesorerı́a de la Seguridad Social (Social Security Treasury),       Pierre Kihn, Office de Brevets, Ernest T. Freylinger, P.O. Box
of the one part, and the Fondo de Garantı́a Salarial (Salary            48, Strassen.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 1999 in Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfer of pension rights - Time-limit for submitting a request - Acquired knowledge - Admissibility - Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials - Provision of a statement of reasons)

text:
C 246/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 11 March 1999
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                 in Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Official — Partial permanent invalidity — Aggravation of
                                                                          injuries — Action for annulment — Action for damages —
                                                                          Admissibility — Principle of equal treatment — Duty to
                                                                          have regard for the welfare and interests of officials — Lack
                                                                                of diligence)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          (1999/C 246/53)
                          of 4 May 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold, an official of the Com-
(Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Time-limit for                  mission of the European Communities, represented by Bernd
submitting a request — Acquired knowledge — Admissi-                      Potthast, Hans-Josef Rüber and Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte,
bility — Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of             Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        officials — Provision of a statement of reasons)                  Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Christine
                                                                          Berardis-Kayser and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first,
                         (1999/C 246/52)                                  for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20
                                                                          November 1996 rejecting the applicant’s request for an
                                                                          increase in the capital sum paid by way of compensation for
                    (Language of the case: French)                        partial permanent invalidity and, second, for the payment of
                                                                          damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                          composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
In Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola, an official of the                     Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                 judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:
sels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Thierry Demaseure,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v            1. Orders the Commissions to pay to the applicant a sum
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                      corresponding to the interest accrued on the compensation received
Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for                   by him on 25 April 1996 (BEF 1 320 157), covering a period
annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting as out of                     of twenty months, calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum,
time the request submitted by the applicant for the transfer to                together with default interest on that sum, likewise calculated at
the Community scheme of the pension rights acquired by him                     the rate of 5 % per annum, for the period from 25 April 1996
in a private pension scheme in the United States of America                    until actual payment of that sum to the applicant;
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May 1999, in                   2. For the rest, dismisses the application;
which it:
1. Dismisses the application;                                             3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of
                                                                               the costs of the applicant.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  16 November 2005  — Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2005 — Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05) (1)

   (2006/C 22/52)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Joined Cases C-338/08 and C-339/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (references for preliminary rulings from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Torino — Italy) — P. Ferrero e C. SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba (C-338/08), General Beverage Europe BV v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Torino 1 (C-339/08) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 90/435/EEC — Concept of withholding tax — Application of a levy of 5 % at the time of distribution of dividends and of the ‘refund of the adjustment surtax’ by an Italian subsidiary to its parent company established in the Netherlands, pursuant to a bilateral convention)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (references for preliminary rulings from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Torino — Italy) — P. Ferrero e C. SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba (C-338/08), General Beverage Europe BV v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Torino 1 (C-339/08)
   (Joined Cases C-338/08 and C-339/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 90/435/EEC - Concept of withholding tax - Application of a levy of 5 % at the time of distribution of dividends and of the ‘refund of the adjustment surtax’ by an Italian subsidiary to its parent company established in the Netherlands, pursuant to a bilateral convention)
   2010/C 221/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: P. Ferrero e C. SpA (C-338/08), General Beverage Europe BV (C-339/08)

      Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba (C-338/08), Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Torino 1 (C-339/08)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Torino — Interpretation of Articles 5(1) and 7(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Concept of withholding tax — Parent company in the Netherlands receiving dividends from its subsidiary in Italy subject to the deduction of a levy of 5 % pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Convention between Italy and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of economic double taxation of dividends — Tax applied to the sums paid by way of ‘maggiorazione di conguaglio’, laid down by Article 10(3) of the Convention.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Subject, inter alia, to determination by the referring court, as specified in paragraph 38 of this judgment, of the nature of the ‘refund’ of the ‘adjustment surtax’ at issue in the cases before it, made by an Italian company to a Netherlands company, pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital and for prevention of fiscal evasion (with protocol), signed at The Hague on 8 May 1990, in so far as it applies to that refund, a withholding tax such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings is not a withholding tax on distributed profits generally prohibited by Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, in the version thereof in force at the material time. However, if the referring court were to find that the ‘refund’ of the ‘adjustment surtax’ is not fiscal in nature, a withholding tax such as that at issue in the cases before it would be a withholding tax on distributed profits which is, as a rule, prohibited by Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435.

               2.

               If the referring court were to regard the withholding tax at issue in the cases before it as a withholding tax on distributed profits within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435, that withholding tax could be held to come within the scope of Article 7(2) of that directive only if, first, that convention contained provisions intended to eliminate or mitigate the economic double taxation of dividends and, secondly, the charging of that withholding tax did not cancel out the effects thereof, a matter which it would be for the referring court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-441/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06: Alrosa Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/22

         Appeal brought on 26 September 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06: Alrosa Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-441/07 P)
   (2007/C 283/39)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Alrosa Company Ltd
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter by dismissing the application for annulment in Case T-170/06 as unfounded;

               —

               order the Applicant in Case T-170/06 to pay the costs of the Commission arising from that case and from the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Pleas on the substance:

               The Commission considers that the judgment under appeal misinterprets Article 9 of regulation 1/2003 (1), and the way in which the principle of proportionality is applicable in the context of that provision. Secondly, the Commission submits that, when examining whether the commitment was proportionate, the judgment under appeal misapplies Article 9, errs in law as regards the interpretation of Article 82 EC, ignores the proper scope of judicial review, distorts the content of the contested decision and the factual record, and lacks reasoning at several stages.

         Pleas on the procedure:

               The Commission submits that the CFI's finding as regards the alleged violation of the applicant's right to be heard lacks sufficient reasoning and remains unclear, given that the CFI provided no unequivocal explanation as to why the applicant would have been unable to prepare an ‘effective’ reply or to ‘fully’ exercise its rights. In addition, it is submitted that the CFI applied the wrong legal standard when likening the applicant to an ‘undertaking concerned’. The CFI also misinterpreted the law by assuming that the applicant should have been given the opportunity to prepare new joint commitments together with De Beers, or to comment on the outcome of the market test before De Beers submitted individual commitments. In addition, the CFI failed to examine whether the applicant actually had this opportunity after receiving the summary of the market test observations. Finally, the Commission maintains that the CFI committed an error in law by considering the applicant's first plea well founded while leaving open to what extent the alleged violation of its right to be heard actually affected the Commission's decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-340/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2007 — France Télécom v Commission (Competition — Decision ordering an inspection — Loyal cooperation with the national courts — Loyal cooperation with the national competition authorities — Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Statement of reasons — Proportionality — Fresh plea in law — Inadmissible)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2007 — France Télécom v Commission
   (Case T-340/04) (1)

   (Competition - Decision ordering an inspection - Loyal cooperation with the national courts - Loyal cooperation with the national competition authorities - Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Statement of reasons - Proportionality - Fresh plea in law - Inadmissible)
   (2007/C 95/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: France Télécom SA, formerly Wanadoo SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Clarenc and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and O. Beynet, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 1929 of 18 May 2004 in Case COMP/C-1.38.916 ordering French Télécom SA and all undertakings which it controls directly or indirectly, including Wanadoo SA and all undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by Wanadoo SA, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.