title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96: Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA (BFM) and Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifatturiera (EFIM) v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty - Notice of initiation of procedure - Aid not explicitly mentioned - Aid to companies located in disadvantaged regions - Restructuring - Recovery of aid - Limitation period)

text:
C 340/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
represented by Santiago MunÄoz Machado, of the Madrid               Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifattu-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               riera (EFIM), established in Rome, represented by Antonio
Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones, 2 Rue Gabriel                     Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36
Lippmann, v. Commission of the European Communities                 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against Commission of
(Agents: initially GeÂrard Rozet, and Fernando Castillo de          the European Communities (Agents: initially Paul Nemitz,
la Torre, and then Mr Rozet and Juan Guerra FernaÂndez,             Lucio Gussetti and Enrico Altieri, subsequently Paul
supported by the French Republic (Agents: Catherine de              Nemitz and Paolo Stancanelli), supported by French
Salins, and Gauthier Mignot), Ð application for a                   Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins, Kareen Rispal-
declaration under Article 175 of the EC Treaty that the             Bellanger, Jean-Marc Belorgey, FreÂdeÂrik Million and
Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under the               Gautier Mignot) and Manoir Industries SA, established in
Treaty, first, by failing to adopt a decision in relation to        Paris, represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of
the complaints made by the applicant against the                    the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Kingdom of Spain for breach of Article 92 of the Treaty             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 rue
and secondly by failing to initiate the procedure provided          Goethe, Ð application for annulment of Commission
for under Article 93(2) of the Treaty, alternatively, for           Decision 96/614/EC of 29 May 1996 concerning certain
annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty of the                    measures granted by Italy in favour of Breda Fucine
Commission's decision allegedly contained in a letter of            Meridionali SpA (OJ L 272 of 25.10.1996, p. 46),
20 February 1996, Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              declaring the State aid granted by the Italian Government
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,              to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA incompatible with the
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.          common market and illegal, Ð the Court of First Instance
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V.
on 15 September 1998, in which it:                                  Tiili, President; C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and
                                                                    J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
1. declares that the Commission failed to fulfil its                1998, in which it:
     obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a
     decision following the two complaints lodged by the
                                                                    1. dismisses the applications;
     applicant on 2 March 1992 and 12 November 1993;
                                                                    2. orders the applicants to pay jointly and severally the
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                    costs incurred by the Commission and by Manoir
     other than those incurred as a result of the                        industries SA;
     intervention by the French Republic;
                                                                    3. orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs
                                                                    (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
     together with the costs incurred by the applicant by
     reason of its intervention.
(1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
                                                                    in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96: Mediocurso,
                                                                    Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the Commission of the European Communities (1)
                     of 15 September 1998                           (European Social Fund Ð Approval decision Ð Reduction
in Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96: Breda Fucine                 of financial assistance Ð Prior hearing of beneficiary Ð
Meridionali SpA (BFM) and Ente Partecipazioni e Finan-              Consultation of the Member State Ð Protection of
ziamento Industria Manifatturiera (EFIM) v. Commission              legitimate expectations Ð Legal certainty Ð Statement of
               of the European Communities (1)                                reasons Ð Manifest error of assessment)
(State aid Ð Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty Ð Notice of                                     (98/C 340/33)
initiation of procedure Ð Aid not explicitly mentioned Ð
Aid to companies located in disadvantaged regions Ð                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   Restructuring Ð Recovery of aid Ð Limitation period)
                         (98/C 340/32)                              In Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96, Mediocurso, Esta-
                                                                    belecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, established in
                                                                    Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Moura Pinheiro, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                    31, Grand-rue, against Commission of the European
In Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96, Breda Fucine                 Communities (Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut
Meridionali SpA (BFM), established in Bari (Italy), and             Simonsson) Ð application for the annulment of


title: Case T-438/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2009 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SpagO — Earlier national word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2009 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO)
   (Case T-438/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SpagO - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 11/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse, D. Moreau, J. Pagenberg, A. von Mühlendahl and S. Abel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: De Francesco Import GmbH, (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 September 2007 (Case R 1285/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between De Francesco Import GmbH and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-107/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by the European Training Foundation (ETF) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-87/08 Schuerings v ETF

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/21

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by the European Training Foundation (ETF) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-87/08 Schuerings v ETF
   (Case T-107/11 P)
   2011/C 139/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Gisela Schuerings (Nice, France)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in case F-87/08;

               —

               In consequence, dismiss the action at first instance and, accordingly,

               —

               Order the respondent to the appeal to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the CST disregarded the interest of the service and of the post, and infringed Articles 2 and 47 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union and the obligation to state reasons, insofar as the CST held in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal that ‘before an agency dismisses a member of staff employed under a contract of indefinite duration on the ground that the tasks to which that member of staff was assigned have been cancelled or transferred to another body, the agency concerned is under an obligation to consider whether the person concerned can be reassigned to another post already in existence or soon to be created, in particular, following the attribution of new responsibilities to the agency concerned’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty, insofar as the CST held in paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal that the administration must, when considering the possibility of reassignment, ‘weigh the interest of the service, which requires the recruitment of the most suitable person to fill the post already in existence or soon to be created, against the interest of the member of staff whose dismissal is contemplated. In order to do so, it must take account … of various criteria, which include the requirements of the post in the light of the qualifications and potential of the member of staff, … and his age, seniority and the number of years of pension contributions remaining before he can claim a retirement pension’.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rules prohibiting rulings ultra vires or ultra petita, and of the procedural rules relating to the principle that both sides should be heard, insofar as the CST:

                           —

                           based its ruling on reasoning which had not been the subject of an exchange of arguments between the parties,

                           —

                           upheld a plea in law which was not one of those raised by Mrs Schuerings and

                           —

                           required the ETF to reinstate Mrs Schuerings although she did not seek an order that she be reinstated.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging breach of Article 266 TFEU and of the obligation to state reasons, insofar as the CST disregarded the power devolved on the ETF to implement a judgment setting aside a decision, and the settled case-law on the subject, by ordering the reinstatement of the person concerned rather than financial compensation when setting aside the decision to dismiss her.


title: Case C-526/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment — Article 11(1) and (2) — Discharge of industrial waste water into collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants — Subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisations — Lack of authorisation)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-526/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Article 11(1) and (2) - Discharge of industrial waste water into collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants - Subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisations - Lack of authorisation)
   2011/C 30/13
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Licence to discharge waste water — ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial site Estação de Serviço Sobritos Lda, situated in the Matosinhos urban area, without adequate authorisation to that effect, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;

               2.

               orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.02.2010.


title: Case T-658/11: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN)
   (Case T-658/11) (1)

   2014/C 78/35
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case F-113/11: Action brought on 25 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/69

      Action brought on 25 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-113/11)
      (2012/C 25/134)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of salary arrears for August 2010

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

                  —

                  annul the decision issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission, rejecting — howsoever and whether in whole or in part — the claims set out in the application of 30 August 2010;

                  —

                  declare that Note Ares (2011)217354 is legally non-existent or, in the alternative, annul that measure (in either case, quatenus opus est);

                  —

                  annul the decision issued by the Commission rejecting, howsoever, the claims set out in the complaint of 14 March 2011;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-16/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge by order of that Court of 19 December 2002 in the case of Peak Holding AB against Axolin-Elinor AB (formerly Handelskompaniet Factory Outlet i Löddeköpinge AB)

text:
C 55/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 (b) has offered them for sale in the trademark owner’s
                                                                                own shops or those of a related company within the
                                                                                common market but a sale of the goods has not
The Republic of Austria neither transposed the principle of                           taken place?
priority contained in Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439/EEC
in the version contained in Directive 87/101/EEC ( 2) not
demonstrated that such priority was precluded by technical,               2.    If goods have been put on the market under one of the
financial or organisational constraints.                                        above alternatives and exhaustion of the trademark right
                                                                                thereby occurs without there having been a sale of the
                                                                                goods, can a trademark owner interrupt exhaustion by
Priority in favour of ‘regeneration’ or (in Austrian terminology)               returning the goods to a warehouse?
‘recycling’ as opposed to ‘combustion’ or (in Austrian termin-
ology) ‘energy conversion’ cannot be inferred from the Austri-            3.    Are goods to be regarded as having been put on the
an legal provisions. Rather those provisions refer to recycling                 market by virtue of the fact that they have been sold by
and energy conversion in the same context without according                     the trademark owner to another company in the internal
priority to one of the two methods of treatment over the                        market, if, upon the sale, the trademark owner imposed a
other.                                                                          restriction on the buyer under which he was not entitled
                                                                                to resell the goods in the common market?
The arguments relied on by the Republic of Austria in order to
substantiate the existence of preclusive technical, financial and         4.    Is the answer to question 3 affected if the trademark
organisational constraints, that is to say that owing to the                    owner, upon selling the consignment to which the goods
small quantity of waste oil regeneration in Austria is unecon-                  belonged, gave the buyer permission to resell a small part
omical; that for ecological reasons no clear advantages is to be                of the goods in the common market but did not specify
gained from recycling; that there is no reprocessing plant                      the individual goods to which that permission applied?
in Austria for waste oils, are in the Commission’s view
unconvincing since they merely seek to perpetuate in Austria
the existing status quo and do not indicate that any endeavours
have been made in order to meet the directive’s requirements.
( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 31.
( 2) OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                          section d’administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
                                                                          Court of 27 December 2002 in the case of Fabricom SA
                                                                                against l’État belge
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hovrätten över                                           (Case C-21/03)
Skåne och Blekinge by order of that Court of 19 December
2002 in the case of Peak Holding AB against Axolin-
Elinor AB (formerly Handelskompaniet Factory Outlet i                                              (2003/C 55/29)
                        Löddeköpinge AB)
                          (Case C-16/03)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
                          (2003/C 55/28)
                                                                          section d’administration (Council of State, administrative sec-
                                                                          tion) (Belgium) of 27 December 2002, received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 22 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    case of Fabricom SA against l’État belge (Belgian State) on the
European Communities by order of the Hovrätten över Skåne                 following questions:
och Blekinge (Court of Appeal for Skåne and Blekinge) of
19 December 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 Janu-              1.    Do Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
ary 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peak Holding                  coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
AB against Axolin-Elinor AB (formerly Handelskompaniet                          operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
Factory Outlet i Löddeköpinge AB) on the following questions:                   munications sectors ( 1), and in particular Article 4(2)
                                                                                thereof, and Directive 98/4/EC ( 2) of 16 February 1998 of
1.    Are goods to be regarded as having been put on the                        the European Parliament and of the Council amending
      market by virtue of the fact that the trademark owner:                    Directive 93/38/EEC, in conjunction with the principle of
                                                                                proportionality, freedom of trade and industry and
      (a)   has imported them into the common market and                        respect for the law of property guaranteed in particular
            paid import duty on them, with the intention that                   by the protocol of 20 March 1992 to the Convention for
            they be sold there?                                                 the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental


title: Case C-496/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/27

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament
   (Case C-496/08 P)
   (2009/C 44/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible, and consequently:

                           —

                           as regards Mrs Angé Serrano, Mr Bras and Mr Orcajo Teresa, annul the judgment under appeal, first, in so far as it holds that there is no need to adjudicate with respect to them as regards their first plea and, secondly, in so far as it dismisses their claim for damages;

                           —

                           as regards Mr Decoutere, Mr Hau and Mr Solana Ramos, annul points 2 and 4 of the judgment under appeal and the grounds relating thereto;

               —

               give judgment in the dispute and, upholding the applicants' initial action in Case T-47/05:

                           —

                           annul the decisions concerning the applicants' classification in grade following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations;

                           —

                           order the European Parliament to pay damages, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 60 000 for each applicant

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs at both instances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance ruled on the actions by the six applicants, all officials of the European Parliament who were successful in internal competitions carried out under the old Staff Regulations but whose classification was amended following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.
   The first three applicants make three pleas in support of their appeal.
   In their first plea, they argue that, by holding that there was no need to adjudicate, the Court of First Instance made an error of law and failed in its duty to state reasons. The applicants argue that they retain an interest in bringing an annulment action against the disputed classification decisions, despite their having been replaced by the subsequent individual decisions of 20 March 2006, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance itself took the view that those new decisions did not fully remedy the damage suffered by the applicants since they did not re-establish classification in a higher grade. Moreover, the contested decisions were based on Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, the legality of which they argue is open to challenge.
   In their second plea, those applicants claim that the Court of First Instance failed in its duty to state reasons by rejecting their claim for damages, whereas classification in grade in accordance with the new Staff Regulations placed them at the same level as their colleagues who had not passed the competition for change of category, and thus caused them severe damage.
   The three latter applicants make a single plea in support of their appeal, arguing that Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII of the new Staff Regulations are unlawful.
   In that respect, the applicants claim, first, that the Court of First Instance infringed acquired rights and the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations in holding that classification in a higher grade following their success in competitions held under the old Staff Regulations did not constitute an acquired right and could not, therefore, give rise to any legitimate expectation.
   In support of the same plea, the applicants argue, secondly, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as, following reclassification in grade carried out under the new Staff Regulations, they were treated identically with their colleagues who had not passed the same competitions. Moreover, the Court of First Instance applied different treatment to identical situations by concluding that successful candidates of the same competition did not constitute a single category, the rules for classification in grade differing, it its estimation, according to the date on which the classification took place. Application of different provisions to successful candidates of the same competition, namely Articles 2(1) and 5(4) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, was thus contrary to the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-764/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/38

         Action brought on 14 November 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission
   (Case T-764/14)
   (2015/C 026/49)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfiri and I Ambazis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision Ares(2014) 2903214 of 5 September 2014 whereby the Commission rejected the applicants’ tender within the framework of the EuropeAid/135040/C/SER/MULTI closed procurement procedure;·

               —

               as appropriate, order the restoration of the status quo ante;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:
   In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the following grounds:

               First, because the experience of the participants was evaluated at the stage of the award procedure, although that experience had already been examined at the pre-selection stage.

               Second, because the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons for the decision by giving insufficient reasons for the ranking of the applicants’ technical offer and failing to communicate the full composition of the winning consortium and the essential elements of the financial offer.

               Third, because the Commission committed a series of manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicants’ technical offer, infringing at the same time the principle of equal treatment of participants.

               Fourth, because the Commission infringed the Financial Regulation and the principle of transparency which that imposes.


title: Case T-20/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/42

         Action brought on 8 January 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-20/14)
   2014/C 112/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Huynh Duong Vi Nguyen (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul provisions including Article 7 (travelling time) of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 8 (travel expenses) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union [(OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15)], in so far as the entitlement to travel expenses and travelling time is linked to the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 169 051,96 for the pecuniary loss suffered and the amount of EUR 40 000 for the non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages with late-payment and compensatory interest at the rate of 6,75 % in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant — whose place of origin is New York, but who does not receive the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance and, as a result, following the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, loses the right to the lump-sum payment of the travel expenses and the increase in annual leave by additional days of leave for travelling time, relies on five pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               infringement of an essential procedural requirement and of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the right to information and the consultation of workers, since the Staff Regulations Committee was side-lined in the review of the Staff Regulations of Officials;

               —

               infringement of the principle of due regard for established rights, the principles concerning intertemporal law and the principle of legal certainty;

               —

               infringement of the right to legitimate expectations;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment; and

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-559/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 73/239/EEC — Directive 92/49/EEC — Principle of single authorisation — Principle of supervision by the home Member State — Article 40(6) — Concept of ‘irregularities’ — Reputation of shareholders — Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)
   (Case C-559/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 73/239/EEC - Directive 92/49/EEC - Principle of single authorisation - Principle of supervision by the home Member State - Article 40(6) - Concept of ‘irregularities’ - Reputation of shareholders - Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State))
   (2017/C 202/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Onix Asigurari SA

      Defendant: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) and, in particular, Article 40(6) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the supervisory authorities of a Member State from taking emergency measures, as against an undertaking providing direct insurance other than life assurance operating in its territory under the freedom to provide services, in order to protect the interests of the insured persons and other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out, such as prohibiting it from concluding new insurance contracts in that territory, on the grounds of the failure, whether pre-existing or otherwise, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, such as the requirement of good repute. However, that directive does not preclude that Member State, in exercising the prerogatives it has in emergency situations, from establishing whether certain inadequacies or uncertainties relating to the good repute of the directors of the insurance undertaking concerned present a real and imminent danger that irregularities will occur to the detriment of the interests of the insured persons or other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out and, if so, from taking appropriate measures immediately, such as, where appropriate, prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts in its territory.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-229/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — Kretschmer v Parliament

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — Kretschmer v Parliament
   (Case T-229/06) (1)

   (2007/C 56/73)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-534/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Bach Flower Remedies (MURNAUERS Bachblüten)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/13

         Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Bach Flower Remedies (MURNAUERS Bachblüten)
   (Case T-534/14)
   2014/C 351/15
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      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 5 May 2014 in Case R 2041/2012-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘MURNAUERS Bachblüten’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 30 — Community trade mark registration No 9 7 49  847

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks including the word element ‘Bach’, national word mark ‘Bach’ and the unregistered mark used in the course of business ‘BACH’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 42 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-634/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Duration of participation in an unlawful cartel — Cessation of the participation — Interruption of the participation — Absence of collusive contact established during a certain period of time — Continuation of the infringement — Burden of proof — Public distancing — Perception of the other participants in the cartel of the company’s intention to distance itself — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of the presumption of innocence, equal treatment, effective judicial protection and that penalties must be specific)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing v European Commission
   (Case C-634/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Duration of participation in an unlawful cartel - Cessation of the participation - Interruption of the participation - Absence of collusive contact established during a certain period of time - Continuation of the infringement - Burden of proof - Public distancing - Perception of the other participants in the cartel of the company’s intention to distance itself - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of the presumption of innocence, equal treatment, effective judicial protection and that penalties must be specific))
   (2015/C 371/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Lemaire and S. Naudin, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Total Marketing Services SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-405/06: Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Arcelor and Others v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/37

         Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Arcelor and Others v Commission
   (Case T-405/06)
   (2007/C 42/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Arcelor Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg), Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg) and Arcelor International (Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 8 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams — C(2006) 5342 final;

               —

               at the very least, annul Article 2 of the decision imposing on the applicants a financial penalty or reduce that penalty drastically;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicants seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 ECSC (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams), concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams and relating to price-fixing, allocation of quotas and information exchange on the market for beams in the Community. In the alternative, they seek the annulment of or a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on them by the contested decision.
   The applicants rely on several pleas in law in support of their action.
   The first plea alleges infringement of Article 97 ECSC and misuse of powers in so far as the contested decision applies Article 65 ECSC after expiry of that treaty pursuant to Article 97 thereof.
   Second, the applicants allege infringement of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and a misuse of powers in so far as the Commission bases its competence to adopt an ECSC decision on a regulation which confers on it powers only pursuant to the implementation of Articles 81 and 82 EC.
   The third plea alleges breach of the rule of law and the rights of the defence in so far as the decision holds three affiliated companies responsible for a practice in which only one participated.
   Furthermore, the applicants claim that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has infringed rules of law relating to limitation.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringed their rights of defence in so far as it was adopted more than fifteen years after the facts, on the basis of a theory for attributing responsibility which, according to the applicants, was set out for the first time by the Commission in its statement of objections of March 2006 and therefore after an excessive period of time.

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


title: Case C-510/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Grenoble, France, by judgment of that court of 15 November 1999 in the case of Procureur de la République and Féderation Départementale des Chasseurs de L'Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-Alpes de Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère (claiming damages) v Xavier Tridon

text:
19.2.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 47/25
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             (a) the amount of the entry fees, or
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             (b) the amount of the entry fees less the amount or value
                                                                                of the prizes given to the successful entrants, or
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex              (c) some other and if so what amount?
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into                   Alternatively, if those services are correctly to be regarded
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that             as supplied by the organiser to each entrant in return for
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to                    the entry fee paid by that entrant, is the taxable amount in
the Commission. That period expired on 1 January 1998                       respect of each such supply —
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
into national law.                                                          (a) the amount of that entry fee, or
(1) OJ No L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.                                           (b) the amount of that entry fee less a proportionate part
                                                                                of the amount or value of the prizes given to the
                                                                                successful entrants, or
                                                                            (c) some other and if so what amount?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                 (1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
that court of 16 December 1999, in the case of Town and                    harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turn-
County Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                        over taxes (OJ 71, 14.04.67, p. 1301 [SE SER1 67, p. 14]).
                                                                        2
                                                                       ( ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                           and Excise
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                        (Case C-498/99)                                    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                         (2000/C 47/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre of 16 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Town and County
Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on
the following questions:                                               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                       Grande Instance, Grenoble, France, by judgment of that
(1) On a proper interpretation of Council Directives                   court of 15 November 1999 in the case of Procureur de la
    67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 and 77/388/EEC (2) of              République and Féderation Départementale des Chasseurs
    17 May 1977, in particular Articles 2.1 and 6.1 of the             de L’Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-Alpes de
    latter, and having regard to the case law of the Court,            Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère (claiming
    in particular Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting                                   damages) v Xavier Tridon
    Leeuwarden (Case C-16/93) [1994] ECR I-743, is a trans-
    action which is agreed by the parties thereto to be ‘binding
    in honour only’ (and therefore unenforceable under dom-                                      (Case C-510/99)
    estic law by legal proceedings) capable of being a taxable
    transaction for the purposes of value added tax?                                              (2000/C 47/43)
(2) If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, then, on
    a proper interpretation of the said Directives, in particular      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Article 11A.1 of the latter, and having regard to the case         European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
    law of the Court, in particular H J Glawe Spiel- und               Grande Instance (Regional Court), Grenoble, France, of
    Unterhaltungsgeräte Aufstellungsgesellschaft mbH & Co              15 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
    KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (Case                    on 28 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    C-38/93) [1994] ECR I-1679, is the taxable amount for              Procureur de la République and Fédération Départementale
    the purposes of value added tax in respect of the services         des Chasseurs de L’Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-
    of organising a competition supplied by the organiser to           Alpes de Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère
    entrants to the competition in return for the entry fees           (claiming damages) v Xavier Tridon, on the following ques-
    paid by the entrants —                                             tions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/26                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.2.2000
1. In respect of the period before 1 June 1997, must the                  References for preliminary rulings by the Giudice di Pace
     provisions of the Convention on international trade in               di Viadana (MN), by orders of 12 November 1999, in the
     endangered species of wild fauna and flora (Cites), in               cases of Cape Snc, Parma, v Idealservice Srl, Viadana,
     particular Articles VII and XIV thereof, of Regulation               and Idealservice MN RE SaS, Viadana, v O.M.A.I. Srl,
     (EEC) No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 (1), in particular                                   Cadelbosaco Sotto (RE)
     Articles 6 and 15 thereof, and of Articles 30 and 36 of the
     EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that they allow a                                (Cases C-541/99 and C-542/99)
     Member State to take or maintain domestic measures
     prohibiting at any time and in the whole territory of that                                     (2000/C 47/44)
     State any commercial use of specimens born and reared in
     captivity of wild species occurring in the wild in all or part       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     of the territory of that State?                                      European Communities by orders of the Giudice di Pace di
                                                                          Viadana of 12 November 1999, which were received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for preliminary rulings
2. With effect from 1 June 1997, must the provisions of the               in the cases of Cape Snc, Parma, v Idealservice Srl, Viadana,
     Convention on international trade in endangered species              and Idealservice MN RE SaS, Viadana, v O.M.A.I. Srl, Cadelbo-
     of wild fauna and flora (Cites), in particular Articles VII          saco Sotto (RE), on the interpretation of Article 2(b) of Council
     and XIV thereof, of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of             Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in
     9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild                 consumer contracts in order to answer the following questions:
     fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2), and of
     Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as                (1) Is it possible to regard as a consumer an undertaking
     meaning that they allow a Member State to take or                        which, by a contract with another undertaking using a
     maintain domestic measures prohibiting at any time and                   form produced by the latter in so far as the contract falls
     in the whole territory of that State any commercial use of               within the scope of its normal business activity, acquires a
     specimens born and reared in captivity of wild species                   service or merchandise for the sole benefit of its employees,
     occurring in the wild in all or part of the territory of that            which is wholly unconnected with and remote from
     State?                                                                   its normal trade and business; can it be said in such
                                                                              circumstances that that party acted for purposes which do
                                                                              not relate to the undertaking?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 of 2 December 1982 on             (2) If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, is
    the implementation in the Community of the Convention on                  it possible to regard any party or entity as a consumer
    international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora,
    OJ L 384 of 31.12.1982, p. 1.
                                                                              when it is acting for purposes not relating or conducive to
                                                                              its normal trade or business, or does the term consumer
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the
    protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade         relate only to natural persons, to the exclusion of any
    therein, OJ L 61 of 03.03.1997, p. 1.                                     other?
                                                                          (3) Can a company be regarded as a consumer?
                                                                          (1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.93, p. 9.


title: Action brought on 29 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-354/96)

text:
No C 388/6                L_EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21 . 12 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 29 October 1996 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
There are two main issues of contention, of which one is                                             Case C-354/96 )
procedural and the other substantive . The procedural issue                                            96/C 388 / 12
concerns the relationship between the procedures laid
down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty and those provided
for in Directive 89/665/EEC ( 3 ) ( the 'Remedies Directive').
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
The substantive issue concerns the question of the                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
interpretation of the expression 'contracting authority'                  29 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
contained in Article 9 of Directive 77/62/EEC as amended
                                                                          Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
at the relevant time ( the ' Supplies Directive').                        Adviser, and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                          as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
— The Remedies Directive and Article 169 of the EC                        the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
       Treaty                                                             Kirchberg.
       The Commission accepts that since, unbeknown to it,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       the contract had already been awarded on 30 May
       prior to the Commission 's communication under
       Article 3 of the Remedies Directive, proceedings under             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and/or, in any event,
       that Article could not be pursued. The question,                        notify the laws, regulations or administrative
       therefore * of the effect of the national judicial                      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
        proceedings is no longer relevant. However, the                        91 /674/EEC f 1 ) of 19 December 1991 on the annual
        Commission does not accept that it is thereby                          accounts    and    consolidated        accounts   of insurance
        prevented from continuing proceedings under                            undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
        Article 169 of the EC Treaty or that such proceedings                  its obligations under that Directive and the EC Treaty;
        would be in any way ' inappropriate'.
                                                                          2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— Contracting authority
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        Paragraphs 2 and 4 to 9 of Article 9 of Directive 77/
        62/EEC as amended ( the relevant Directive at the time
        of the award of the contract ) provides that                      Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
        'contracting authorities' who wish to award a public              directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
        supply contract shall make known their intention by               upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
        means of a notice to be published in the Official                 Member States are required to observe the time limits laid
       Journal of the European Communities.                               down in directives for their transposition. That time limit
                                                                          expired on 1 January 1994 without the Italian Republic
                                                                          having brought into force the necessary provisions in
        From the correspondence between the Commission                    order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
        and Ireland it appears that the Irish Government                  Commission's application.
        accepts that the contract in question is a public supply
        contract for the purposes of the Directive, but that it
        disputes that Coillte Teoranta is a contracting                    (') OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 7 .
        authority within the meaning of the Directive .
        Having examined the Forestry Act 1988 as well as the
        memorandum and articles of association of Coillte
        Teoranta , which set out its objects and internal rules,          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
        the Commission considers that there are a number of                Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that Court of 15 October
        provisions which confirm that Coillte Teoranta is a                1996 in the case of Silhouette International Schmied
        'contracting authority' for the purposes of the                    Gesellschaft     mbH          &       Co     KG     v.   Hartlauer
        Directive .                                                                           Handelsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-355/96 )
 ( i ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
 ( 2 ) Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 amending                                         ( 96/C 388/ 13 )
       Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination of
       procedures on the award of public supply contracts and
       repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC ( OJ No        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p. 1 ).                                      European Communities by an order of the Oberster
 ( 3 ) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the             Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria, of 15 October
       coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
                                                                           1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
       the award of public supply and public work contracts ( OJ No        30 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                           Silhouette International Schmied Gesellschaft mbH & Co
       L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 ).
                                                                           KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH on                         the
                                                                           following questions :


title: Case C-312/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Huy (Belgium) lodged on 28 June 2012 — Agim Ajdini v État belge, Service des Allocations aux Handicapés

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Huy (Belgium) lodged on 28 June 2012 — Agim Ajdini v État belge, Service des Allocations aux Handicapés
   (Case C-312/12)
   2012/C 287/37
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Huy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agim Ajdini

      Defendant: État belge, Service des Allocations aux Handicapés

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4 of the Law of 27 February 1987 on Disability Benefits compatible with European Union Law, and in particular with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (200/C 364/01), inter alia Articles 20, 21 and 26 thereof, in so far as it excludes from entitlement to disability benefits, solely on grounds of nationality, a foreign national who is lawfully resident in Belgium, is entered in the Aliens Register and has strong and long-standing links with Belgium, having lived there with his family for 12 years, with the particular circumstance that that foreign person is a national of a third country which is an official candidate for accession to the European Union?

               2.

               Is Article 26(4) of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Court of Arbitration compatible with European law, and in particular with Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?


title: Case C-310/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) lodged on 11 July 2008 — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) lodged on 11 July 2008 — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-310/08)
   (2008/C 247/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: London Borough of Harrow

      Defendants: Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department
   Questions referred
   In circumstances where (i) a non-EU national spouse and her EU national children accompanied an EU national who came to the United Kingdom (ii) the EU national was in the United Kingdom as a worker (iii) the EU national then ceased to be a worker and subsequently left the United Kingdom (iv) the EU national, the non-EU national spouse and children are not self-sufficient and are dependent upon social assistance in the United Kingdom (v) the children commenced primary education in the United Kingdom shortly after their arrival there while the EU national was a worker:

               (1)

               do the spouse and children only enjoy a right of residence in the United Kingdom if they satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1)?;
               OR

               (2)

                           (i)

                           do they enjoy a right to reside derived from Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (2), as interpreted by the Court of Justice, without being required to satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004;
                           and

                           (ii)

                           if so, must they have access to sufficient resources so as not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their proposed period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State?;

               (3)

               if the answer to question 1 is yes, is the position different in circumstances such as the present case where the children commenced primary education and the EU-national worker ceased working prior to the date by which Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 was to be implemented by the Member States?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2013 in Case E-7/12 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit)

text:
               24.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 9 July 2013
   in Case E-7/12
   Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit)
   2013/C 309/04
   In Case E-7/12, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under Articles 37 and 46 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for a declaration of a failure to act and non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby declares:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the claim that ESA failed to act in relation to the remaining documents in Case No 34250;

               2.

               Dismisses the action to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders ESA to pay the costs concerning the failure to act, its own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability and half of those of the applicants concerning the action for non-contractual liability;

               4.

               Orders the applicants to pay half of their own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability.


title: Case F-55/13: Action brought on 2 June 2013 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/26

         Action brought on 2 June 2013 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-55/13)
   (2013/C 226/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2011 in so far as it does not classify his performance as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and in so far as it sets his objectives for 2012, annulment of the guidelines for that staff report, and, lastly, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage that the applicant claims he has sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul: (a) the decision of 18 December 2012 in so far as the Appeals Committee, under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations and Note to Staff No 715 HR/P&O/2012-0103 of 29 March 2012, dismissed the appeal against the applicant’s staff report for 2011; (b) the part of that staff report containing the appraisal, in so far as the applicant’s performance is not summarised as ‘Exceptional’ or ‘Very good’ and in so far as no proposal is made to promote him to Function D, together with the part which sets his objectives for 2012; (c) all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’ of May 2012, given that, in view of the appraisal made by the applicant’s line managers and challenged in this action, the EIB failed to take him into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;

               —

               annul or refrain from applying the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in note No 709 RH/P&O/2011-0242 of 13 December 2011 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2011 annual staff appraisal exercise’ of 14 December 2011, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be expressed by means of a summary description but do not establish the criteria which must be used by the appraiser in order for performance to be regarded as ‘exceptional — exceeding expectations’, ‘very good’, or ‘meeting all expectations’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs and to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage.


title: Case T-284/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — AlzChem/Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/55

         Action brought on 1 June 2015 — AlzChem/Commission
   (Case T-284/15)
   (2015/C 302/71)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 15 October 2014 under Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the continued operation of NCHZ under the decision of the creditors’ committee did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that no advantage was conferred onto Novácke chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze (NCHZ) while its operations were maintained after the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors to continue the operations of NCHZ is not imputable to the State.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU, with regard to the imputability to the State of the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors

                           —

                           The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the approval of the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors by the Trenčín Court. The Commission also failed to provide reasons in relation to the veto rights of the secured creditors regarding the continuation of NCHZ’s operations under Slovak bankruptcy law.


title: Case T-390/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi and Others v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi and Others v Commission
   (Case T-390/04) (1)

   (2008/C 197/65)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-230/00: Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
12.8.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/19
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of           1.    In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
10 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on                     excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
2 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Director-               their tenders explanations concerning components of the
Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social                       price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços                    specified in the tender conditions represent an obstacle
SA. The Supremo Tribunal Administrativo referred to the                      to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
Court for a preliminary ruling on the correct interpretation of
Community law, namely:                                                 2.    Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining
                                                                             the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the
                                                                             validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an
—    Articles 5(4) and 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             ad hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically
     No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October 1983 on the implementa-                    so that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold
     tion of Decision 83/516/EEC (2) on the tasks of the
                                                                             in advance, represent an obstacle to the application of
     European Social Fund (ESF); and
                                                                             Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
—    Article 5 of Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October            3.    Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place
     1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund                           at an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has
                                                                             allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of
                                                                             an opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of
in order to ascertain whether where the certification decision,              the envelopes and before the adoption of the measure
for which the DAFSE is competent, deems certain expenditure                  excluding it, represent an obstacle to the application of
to be unreasonable and only certifies it in part (in other words,            Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
the negative part of the certification decision) makes it
impossible for the Commission to approve payments relating             4.    Does a provision under which the contracting authority
to the expenditure which was not certified by the competent                  may take account of explanations relating solely to the
body in the Member State.                                                    economy of the construction method or the technical
                                                                             solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable condi-
                                                                             tions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
(1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.                                                     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
(2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
                                                                       5.    Does the exclusion of explanations relating exclusively to
                                                                             items for which minimum values have been established
                                                                             by administrative provisions or can be inferred from
                                                                             official lists represent an obstacle to the application of
                                                                             Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber                   coordination of procedures for the award of public works
of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) by order of                   contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
that court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio
SpA, acting on its own account and also as mandated
under its ad hoc association with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl,
against ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro
Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its own account and also
  as mandated under its ad hoc association with IOS SpA
                                                                       Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
                         (Case C-225/00)
                                                                        European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                         (2000/C 233/36)                                                         (Case C-230/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/37)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of
the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 7 March 2000,             An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2000, for a prelimina-        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
ry ruling in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio SpA, acting on its          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association          represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the Commission’s
with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl, against ANAS — Ente Nazionale            Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by H. van der Woude
per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its           and T.E.M. Chellingsworth, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association          for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
with IOS SpA, on the following questions:                              Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             through expiry of the period within which a decision must be
                                                                        taken should be regarded as constituting a very serious
                                                                        infringement of the above directives.
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose in full          ( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
      Article 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) of 15 July          ( 2) OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23.
      1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive                    ( 3) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
      91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of            ( 4) OJ 1984 L 188, p. 20.
      Council Directive 76/464/EEC (2) of 4 May 1976 on                 ( 5) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
      pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dischar-
      ged into the aquatic environment of the Community,
      Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Council Directive
      80/68/EEC (3) of 17 December 1979 on the protection
      of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
      dangerous substances, Articles 3, 4, 9 and 10 of Council
      Directive 84/360/EEC (4) of 28 June 1984 on the comba-            Action brought on 13 June 2000 against the French
      ting of air pollution from industrial plants, and Articles 2      Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
      and 8 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (5) of 27 June                                              ties
      1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
      and private projects on the environment, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Artic-                                   (Case C-233/00)
      le 249 EC and the above directives;
                                                                                (2000/C 233/38)
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      proceedings.                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 June
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Götz zur Hausen and Jean-François Pasquier,
                                                                        Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                                                                        Member of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
The Commission takes the view that the so-called ‘implied
authorisation’ provided for in the local legislation of Flanders        —     declare that by not correctly transposing Article 2(a) and
and Wallonia runs counter to the provisions of the directives                 Article 3(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC
listed in the forms of order sought. The mechanism of this                    of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information
‘implied authorisation’ operates as follows: if the competent                 on the environment (1) the French Republic has failed to
authority at first instance does not take a decision on an                    fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the
application for authorisation, the requested authorisation will               third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty;
then be deemed to have been refused (the principle of implied
refusal). However, precisely the opposite applies at higher             —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
instance. If the appellate authority fails, within the specified
period, to take a decision, authorisation will be deemed to
have been granted (the principle of implied authorisation).             Pleas in law and main arguments
This rule applies even in the case of express or implied refusal
of authorisation at first instance.                                     —     Incomplete transposition of the combined provisions of
                                                                              Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of Directive 90/313/EEC
                                                                              (scope of the duty to communicate): The concept of
                                                                              ‘administrative document’ used by (French) Law No 78-
‘Implied authorisation’ resulting from the mere fact that the                 753 is narrower than that of ‘information relating to the
time-limit for taking a decision has passed cannot, however,                  environment’ contained in the directive, with the result
be treated as constituting express administrative action. The                 that certain documents held by the administration and
directives cited above require, not a merely formal licensing                 containing environmental information likely to be of
obligation, but a substantive decision. In addition, the authori-             interest to citizens might not be communicable on the
sation applied for may be granted only after a prior investiga-               basis of Law No 78-753.
tion has been conducted; the mechanism of ‘implied authorisa-
tion’ provides no guarantee that authorisation will be granted          —     Incorrect transposition of the first paragraph of Artic-
only once such an investigation has been completed. Finally,                  le 3(2) (exceptions to the principle that environmental
the possibility that, if the competent authority at first instance            information is to be communicated): The final indent of
concludes that the requested authorisation has to be refused,                 Article 6 of Law No 78-753 allows a request for access
that decision may be overturned at appellate level merely                     to information to be refused where consultation or the


title: Case T-134/11: Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/21

         Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission
   (Case T-134/11)
   2011/C 130/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih (Birmingham, United Kingdom), Ghunia Abdrabbah (Birmingham, United Kingdom), Taher Nasuf (Manchester, United Kingdom), and Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 (1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 (2) insofar as they relate to the applicants; and

               —

               Order that the Council of the European Union pays, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicants and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has deliberately ignored binding case-law of the Court of Justice and failed to independently review the basis of the applicants’ designations or required any reasons for those designations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 did not respect the right to judicial review and infringed the rights of the defence, thereby interfering with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the conclusions reached in the Commission’s review concerning one of the applicants, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd, are wrong and unsustainable in law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 are a disproportionate interference to all four applicants’ rights to property and their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In addition, such legislation is irrational, particularly given the United Kingdom’s stance that the first three applicants no longer fulfil the relevant criteria.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 141st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 6)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 140th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 4)