title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2004 in Case C-248/03 Commission of the European Communities v Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) and Others (Arbitration clause — Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom — Articles 2 and 3 — Reference to the Court of First Instance)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/2

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 8 October 2004
   in Case C-248/03 Commission of the European Communities v Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) and Others (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom - Articles 2 and 3 - Reference to the Court of First Instance)
   (2005/C 69/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-248/03: application under Article 238 EC, brought on 6 June 2003, by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia, assisted by M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatziyiannis) against Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends), a civil partnership with non-profit-making aims, established in Athens (Greece), (Lawyer: V. Christianos), Marios Kontaratos, residing in Athens (Greece), Anastasios Tillis, residing in Neo Irakleio, Attica (Greece), (Lawyer: V. Christianos), Georgios Argyrakos, residing in Athens (Greece), Konstantinos Petrakis, residing in Cholargos, Attica (Greece), Fotini Koutrouba, residing in Glyfada, Attica (Greece) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General: R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Case C-248/03 is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case C-374/10: Action brought on 27 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/35

         Action brought on 27 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-374/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/60
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and M. Sundén, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for implementing the Directive expired on 3 August 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch, by judgment of that court of 11 November 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus Johannes Maria Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor Pierre Maria Nuchelmans (Cases C-425/97, C-426/97 and C-427/97)

text:
7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/5
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                Registry on 16 December 1997, in the criminal
                       (Third Chamber)                              proceedings against Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus
                                                                    Johannes Maria Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor
                    of 18 December 1997                             Pierre Maria Nuchelmans on the following question:
in Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening
and Sven ke Henrikson v. Commission of the European                Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico mimetische
                        Communities (1)                             werking (P.V.V.) 1991 and, more particularly, Article 3(1)
                                                                    thereof, contain technical regulations which, pursuant to
(Common agricultural policy Ð Agricultural conversion
                                                                    Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the
    rate in the sugar sector Ð Appeal clearly unfounded)
                                                                    time when the Verordening came into force, should have
                         (98/C 72/08)                               been notified to the Commission beforehand?'
                (Language of the case: English)                     (1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
In Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening,
an association established under Swedish law, having its
registered office in Malmö (Sweden), and Sven ke
Henrikson, residing in Lund (Sweden), represented by
Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, Michael             Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling    by    the
Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and Vanessa Turner,                  Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         Bozen, Italy, by order of that court of 16 December 1997
Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume Ð                   in the cases brought by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of          Italia Nostra, national association, and Günther
the European Communities (First Chamber) of 4 October               Bachmann and others v. the Autonome Provinz Bozen, the
1996       in    Case     T-197/95     Sveriges    Betodlares       Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen, the
Centralförening and Henrikson v. Commission [1996]                  Gemeinde Leifers, Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and
ECR II-1283, seeking to have that order set aside, the                                Airport Bolzano-Bozen AG
other party to the proceedings being the Commission of                                      (Case C-435/97)
the European Communities (Agent: James Macdonald
                                                                                (98/C 72/10)
Flett) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C.
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; M. B.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Elmer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
                                                                    European        Communities        by    order     of     the
order on 18 December 1997, the operative part of which
                                                                    Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz
is as follows:
                                                                    Bozen (Administrative Court, Separate Division for the
                                                                    Province of Bolzano), Italy, of 16 December 1997,
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                         received at the Court Registry on 24 December 1997, for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the cases brought by the World
                                                                    Wildlife Fund (WWF), Italia Nostra, national association,
2. The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.                     and Günther Bachmann and others against the Autonome
                                                                    Provinz Bozen (Autonomous Province of Bolzano), the
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                              Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen (District of
                                                                    Bolzano), the Gemeinde Leifers (District of LaÁives),
                                                                    Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and Airport Bolzano-
                                                                    Bozen AG on the following questions:
                                                                    1. Is Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) to be
                                                                         interpreted as meaning:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch, by judgment of that court of
11 November 1997 in the criminal proceedings against                     (a) that certain classes of the projects listed in
Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus Johannes Maria                            Annex II may from the outset, in the absolute
Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor Pierre Maria                               discretion of the Member States, be excluded in
                          Nuchelmans                                          their entirety from the obligation to carry out an
                                                                              environmental assessment; or
          (Cases C-425/97, C-426/97 and C-427/97)
                         (98/C 72/09)                                    (b) that the margin of discretion enjoyed by the
                                                                              Member States is limited by the obligation laid
                                                                              down in Article 2(1) of the directive to subject to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        an environmental assessment in any event those
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof                           projects likely to have significant effects on the
(Regional Court of Appeal) 's-Hertogenbosch, of                               environment, by virtue inter alia of their nature,
11 November 1997, which was received at the Court                             size or location?


title: Case T-204/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-204/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/122)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-282/05 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/30

         Appeal brought on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-282/05 P)
   (2005/C 217/59)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, represented by Peter Niggemann and Frederik Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Feldmühleplatz 1, D-40545 Düsseldorf.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG and the European Commission; (1)

               2.

               Order the defendant and respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 139 002,21 together with interest at an overall rate of 5,75 % for the period from 15 April 2000 until payment has been made in full;

               3.

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the Court of Justice;

               4.

               Order the defendant and respondent to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance has infringed Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by ruling that the reimbursement claim was time-barred in so far as the claims arose before 31 January 1998. Contrary to the view of that Court, the limitation period did not begin to run on provision of the guarantees, but only when the Cement judgment was given on 15 March 2000. Only after the annulment of the Cement decision could the defendant's obligation to compensate have been successfully relied on. In particular, the amount of the loss was not sufficiently clear when the guarantees were provided, since it was not foreseeable how long the annulment proceedings would last. In addition, it was not the case that a large number of daily, successive losses arose as a result of the provision of guarantees; on the contrary the loss was a single and uniform one. In the alternative, it is submitted that under the second sentence of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice the limitation period was interrupted by the lodging of annulment proceedings.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance was incorrect to examine and reject the existence of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. First, that additional condition for a claim to reimbursement was developed by case-law only in respect of Community legislative measures and not in respect of administrative acts — such as fining decisions issued pursuant to competition rules. Even if the criterion of a 'sufficiently serious breach' were also to apply in this case, there would however be such an infringement, since the defendant had no discretion when issuing the unlawful Cement decision; the complexity of the case can then no longer matter. However, even if the complexity were to be examined in addition, the case could not be qualified as complex, at least to the extent that the applicant or its legal predecessors were affected. With respect to them, the Cement proceeding merely dealt with the examination of a small amount of evidence and the simple question whether there was a lawful export cartel. The joining of the proceedings in respect of several other undertakings into a single proceeding cannot adversely affect the applicant.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance did not correctly assess the question of the causal link between the unlawfulness and the loss. Had the defendant not imposed the unlawful fining decision on the applicant, the latter would not have incurred any losses by way of guarantee costs. The provision of bank guarantees did not break the causal link. Both forms of security — namely provisional payment of the amount of the fine and provision of guarantees — should be regarded in the same manner in terms of their legal consequences.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005, p. 14.


title: Case T-442/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/28

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-442/07)
   (2008/C 37/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare that the Commission has failed to define its position pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty, including, in particular, Article 232 EC, in response to the applicant's complaints of 3 November and 13 December 2005, 16 June and 10 November 2006, and its letter of formal notice of 2 August 2007;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible; and

               —

               to take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant initiated an action under Article 232 EC, claiming that the Commission has failed to define its position in connection with the complaints filed on 3 November 2005, 13 December 2005, 16 June 2006 and 10 November 2006, followed by a letter of formal notice of 2 August 2007.
   It is submitted as the main plea, that the Commission has failed to conduct and conclude a diligent and impartial examination of the complaints lodged by the applicant, alleging the grant of unlawful aid in the form of advantages conferred by the Italian State to airlines Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana. Alternatively, as a subsidiary plea, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's complaints alleging anticompetitive discrimination and, hence, an infringement of Article 82 EC.
   The applicant claims that the measures that are subject to its complaint, namely, (i) payment to Alitalia of ‘9/11 compensation’ aid, (ii) favourable conditions surrounding the transfer of Alitalia Servizi to Fintecna, (iii) the failure of the Italian State to claim payment of debts owed by Alitalia to Italian airports, (iv) public financing of Alitalia's redundancy payments, (v) rebates on fuel costs, (vi) reductions in airport charges at Italian hubs, (vii) the transfer of over 100 Alitalia employees to Meridiana and Air One and (viii) discriminatory restrictions on the operation of the applicant at regional airports including Ciampino airport, are attributable to the Italian State, constitute lost revenue to it and specifically benefit to Alitalia as well as Air one and Meridiana for some of the measures concerned. According to the applicant, these measures constitute State aid, fulfilling all conditions set out in Article 87(1) EC.
   Alternatively, as a subsidiary plea, the applicant submits that the failure of Italian airports to obtain payment of debts owed by Alitalia, the reductions in airport charges at Italian hubs, the rebates on fuel costs and the discriminatory restrictions on the operation of the applicant at regional airports constitute an infringement of competition law. Accordingly, the applicant contends that, in the event that the Court found that some of the advantages conferred to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana were not attributable to the State, because Italian airports and fuel providers that have granted the above advantages would have been acting in an autonomous manner, such advantages would amount to anticompetitive discrimination which cannot be justified by objective reasons and hence, infringe Article 82 EC.
   Moreover, the applicant contends that it has a legitimate interest to bring such a complaint both as a customer of airport services and aviation fuel and as a competitor of Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission was under an obligation to act, in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulations (EC) 659/1999 (1) and (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3). The Commission did not however take any action upon receipt of the complaints, nor did it take position upon receipt of its letter of formal notice.
   As a result, the applicant claims that a prima facie infringement of competition law existed and that the unreasonable long period of 9 to 21 months which elapsed, depending on the subject-matter of the complaint, between the Commission's receipt of the letter of formal notice and the Commission's inaction constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).

      (2)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 1, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 123, p. 18).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 March 1996 in Case C-238/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale for Tarn-et-Garonne): José García and Others v. Mutuelle de prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others (Non-life insurance - Council Directive 92/49/EEC - Scope)

text:
 No C 180/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
 3 . Community law does not require a Member State which,             and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) must
     in transposing Directive 90/531 /EEC into national law,          be interpreted as meaning that social security schemes such
     has itself determined which services of a contracting            as those in issue in the main proceedings are excluded from
     entity are to be excluded from its scope in                      the scope of the Directive.
     implementation of Article 8, to compensate that entity
     for any loss suffered by it as a result of the error
     committed by the State.                                          f 1 ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
 (') OJ No C 287, 23 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 March 1996
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      in Case C-271/94: European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union ( l )
                       of 26 March 1996
                                                                      (Council Decision 94/445/EC — Edicom — Telematic
 in Case C-238/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                networks — Legal basis)
 the   Tribunal    des   affaires   de   sécurité   sociale for
                                                                                { 96/ C 180/16 )
 Tarn-et-Garonne ): José Garcia and Others v. Mutuelle de
        prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others ( 1 )
 (Non-life insurance — Council Directive 92/49/EEC —                                   (Language of the case: French)
                              Scope)
                         ( 96/C 180/15 )
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case C-271/94 , European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and José Luis Rufas
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Quintana ), supported by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agent: Georgios Kremlis ) v. Council of the
                                                                     European Union ( Agents: Antonio Sacchettini and Amadeu
In Case C-238/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Lopes Sabino ) — application for the annulment of Council
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité          Decision 94/445/EC of 11 July 1994 on interadministration
sociale ( Social Security Tribunal ) for Tarn-et-Garonne for a       telematic networks for statistics relating to the trading of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            goods between Member States ( Edicom ) ( OJ No L 183 ,
court between José Garcia and Others v . Mutuelle de                  1994 , p . 42 ) — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez
prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others — on the                   Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
interpretation of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Council Directive               of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws,               Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct         H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Judges,
insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives          Advocate-General : A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. von
73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC ( third non-life insurance                 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 March
Directive ) ( OJ No L 228 , 1992 , p . 1 ) — the Court,              1996 in which it :
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O.
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida            1 . Annuls Council Decision 94/445/EC of 11 July 1 994 on
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,                 interadministration telematic networks for statistics
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,                               relating to the trading ofgoods between Member States
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                            (Edicom).
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
26 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                            2 . Maintains the effects of the Commission decisions
                                                                            already adopted pursuant to the annulled decision until
                                                                            such time as a decision adopted on the appropriate legal
Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June                     basis enters into force.
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC               3 . Orders the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-43/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — CRM v Commission (Application for interim measures — Registration of a protected geographical indication — ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — CRM v Commission
   (Case T-43/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Registration of a protected geographical indication - ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2015/C 205/45)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)) (OJ 2014 L 316, p. 3).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-304/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Rosanna Valenza v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Rosanna Valenza v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-304/11)
   2011/C 252/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rosanna Valenza

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC (1), under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules on employment stabilisation for workers in precarious employment (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006), under which it is possible, in derogation from the rule requiring a public selection procedure, to recruit directly, under contracts of unlimited duration, workers who have already been recruited on fixed-term contracts but with the length of service accrued under those fixed-term contracts being set at nought; or does the loss of length of service, as provided for by the national legislature, fall within the ambit of the derogation relating to ‘objective grounds’, given the need to prevent workers in precarious employment from being admitted to the permanent staff to the detriment of workers already on the permanent staff, which would be the position if it were possible for workers in precarious employment to have the length of service accrued taken into account?

               (b)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules under which, without prejudice to the accrual of length of service for the period of the fixed-term contract, the fixed-term contract is to be terminated and a new contract of unlimited duration established, which is different from the previous contract and under which the length of service accrued is not to be maintained (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006)?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-435/13: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2014  — Triarii v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/55

         Order of the General Court of 5 March 2014 — Triarii v Commission
   (Case T-435/13) (1)

   2014/C 142/71
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case T-517/12: Action brought on 23 November 2012 — Alro v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Action brought on 23 November 2012 — Alro v Commission
   (Case T-517/12)
   2013/C 32/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alro SA (Slatina, Romania) (represented by: C. Quigley, QC, O. Bretz, Solicitor, and S. Verschuur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 26 April 2012 to open, pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 4(4) of Council’s Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) (‘the Procedural Regulation’), a formal investigation into alleged unlawful State aid granted by Romania, through its control of Hidroelectrica S.A. (‘Hidroelectrica’), to ALRO in the form of preferential tariffs for the purchase of electricity through a contract concluded in 2005 and its successive amendments;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the said decision of 26 April 2012 in so far as it applies to the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2009;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a material error of law
               In relation to the first plea, stating that the Commission committed a material error of law in relation to the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, ALRO will demonstrate that the Commission has failed to apply properly the requirements relating to imputability, as set out in Case C-482/99, France v Commission [2002] ECR I-4397 (‘the Stardust Marine judgment’). In particular, the Commission has sought to base its analysis solely on ‘organic’ indicators. However, ALRO will demonstrate that the requirements set out in the Stardust Marine judgment also require the Commission to demonstrate the existence of other substantive indicators because ‘organic’ indicators in isolation are insufficient to establish imputability.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
               In relation to the second plea in law, stating that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in reaching the conclusion that Hidroelectrica’s actions were imputable to the Romanian State, ALRO will demonstrate that the Commission has failed to analyse correctly the governance structure of Hidroelectrica and the impact that this structure has on the decision-making process of this organisation. Secondly, ALRO will outline why the Commission was wrong to compare the ALRO contract to the agreement between Hidroelectrica and ArcelorMittal. Thirdly, it will demonstrate why the Ministerial Order No 445/2009 is not relevant to the Commission’s analysis and why its references to press reports in 2010 are insufficient to meet the evidentiary threshold necessary to demonstrate imputability.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons
               In relation to the third plea in law, ALRO will demonstrate that for the points relied on by the Commission (as outlined in the paragraph above), it has failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons, and has therefore acted contrary to the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. Such a statement of reasons is necessary to allow the General Court to review the legality of the decision and to provide the parties concerned with the information necessary to enable them to ascertain whether or not the decision is well-founded. As indicated in more detail in this application, the contested decision fails to satisfy this requirement.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1)


title: Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by Société Guérin Automobiles EURL against the order delivered on 13 February 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-276/97 between Société Guérin Automobiles EURL and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-154/98 P)

text:
15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/13
Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Automobiles EURL against the order delivered on                    Fort Rheinsheim.
13 February 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-276/97 between SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and            The appellant claims that the Court should:
        the Commission of the European Communities
                      (Case C-154/98 P)                            set aside the order made on 13 February 1998 by the First
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (98/C 258/23)                              Communities in Case T-195/96 Alexopoulou v
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (1), by which it
                                                                   dismissed the action brought by the appellant;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance           make the following declarations and rulings, as the Court
of the European Communities in Case T-276/97 between               of First Instance should have done:
SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and the Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April 1998            Ð annul the Decision of the appointing authority
by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, represented by                  rejecting the applicant's request, classifying her in
Jean-Claude Fourgous, of the Paris and Brussels Bar, with              Grade A7, step 5, and implicitly refusing to appoint
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                her to grade A6;
Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                       28 August 1996 rejecting the appellant's request of
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       3 April 1996;
Ð set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of            Ð order the appointing authority to pay to the appellant
    the European Communities of 13 February 1998;                      the sum of BFR 250 000 by way of provisional
                                                                       compensation for the damage suffered by her as a
                                                                       result of the loss of her chances of promotion to grade
Ð orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              A5; order the appointing authority to calculate the
                                                                       salary which the appellant would have received if she
                                                                       had been promoted to grade A5 with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1 December 1995; and order it to pay the amount
                                                                       thus calculated, together with default interest from
                                                                       1 December 1995, subject to deduction therefrom of
                                                                       the sum of BFR 250 000 claimed above;
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
those in Case C-153/98 P.
                                                                   Ð orders the appointing authority to pay all the costs,
                                                                       including those relating to the proceedings at first
                                                                       instance.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 21 April 1998 by Spyridoula
Alexopoulou against the Order made on 13 February                  Ð Failure to provide a statement of reasons and
1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance               infringement of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure
of the European Communities in Case T-195/96 between                   of the Court of First Instance: it is not possible to
Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the                       deduce from the scheme of the contested order the
                    European Communities                               reasons for which the Court of First Instance held that
                                                                       the action was manifestly' unfounded, or to tell
                      (Case C-155/98 P)
                                                                       whether the Court of First Instance intended to dismiss
                        (98/C 258/24)                                  it as unfounded or as inadmissible. The order does not
                                                                       state that the views of the Advocate General were
                                                                       heard. Lastly, it deals jointly with the issues of
                                                                       classification and promotion, without stating any
An appeal against the Order made on 13 February 1998                   reasons for so doing.
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-195/96 between
Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the                   Ð Failure to take full account of Article 31 of the Staff
European Communities was brought before the Court of                   Regulations of Officials: by adding a two fold
Justice of the European Communities on 21 April 1998 by                criterion governing exceptions to Article 31, the
Spyridoula Alexopoulou, represented by Olivier Slusny, of              contested order purported to lay down, as a matter of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                       law, conditions which that article does not contain.


title: Case C-357/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o. v Minister for Finance

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o. v Minister for Finance
   (Case C-357/13)
   2013/C 274/09
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o.

      Defendant: Minister for Finance

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1) (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11) be interpreted to mean that a limited joint-stock partnership should be regarded as a capital company within the meaning of those provisions if it follows from the legal nature of that partnership that only part of its capital and partners are able to meet the requirements set out in Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of the Directive?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, should Article 9 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11), which allows a Member State to choose not to recognise the entities referred to in Article 2(2) of the Directive as capital companies, be interpreted to mean that the said Member State is also free to choose whether or not to levy capital duty on such entities?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.


title: Case T-5/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Infra-State body — Locus standi — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Error of assessment — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council
   (Case T-5/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Infra-State body - Locus standi - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Error of assessment - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2015/C 363/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and also of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Iran Liquefied Natural Gas in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2012/635 and Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 to be maintained as regards Iran Liquefied Natural Gas until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iran Liquefied Natural Gas in the context of the present proceedings and of the proceedings relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case C-422/05: Action brought on  28 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/13

         Action brought on 28 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-422/05)
   (2006/C 48/26)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and Mikko Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by adopting the Royal Decree of 14 April 2002 regulating night flights of certain types of civil subsonic jet aircraft, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2002/30/EC (1) and under the second paragraph of Article 10 EC in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC;

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Decree specifies certain types of aircraft which cannot operate in Belgian airports between 11 pm and 6 am. As it is based on the by-pass ratio, the Royal Decree takes a different approach to that of Directive 2002/30/EC, which is based on a certification procedure. This approach corresponds to that taken in Regulation (EC) No 925/1999, which was repealed by Directive 2002/30/EC.
   According to Article 16 of Directive 2002/30/EC, which entered into force on 28 March 2002, the Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 28 September 2003 at the latest. The Royal Decree was adopted before the deadline for transposition of the Directive. The Commission cites the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which it follows from Articles 10 EC and 249 EC in conjunction with a directive itself that, during the period allowed for transposition, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive in question in question. By taking an approach involving operating restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of recertified civil subsonic jet aircrafts, which is completely different from that taken by the Directive, the Royal Decree seriously compromises the result prescribed by the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40.


title: Case C-378/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of  9 September 2005  in Samotor SPRL v Belgian State

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 9 September 2005 in Samotor SPRL v Belgian State
   (Case C-378/05)
   (2005/C 330/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation (Belgium) of 9 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Samotor SPRL and the Belgian State on the following questions:

               1.

               Where the recipient of a supply of goods is a taxable person who has entered into a contract in good faith without knowledge of a fraud committed by the seller, does the principle of fiscal neutrality in respect of value added tax mean that the fact that the contract of sale is void, by reason of a rule of domestic civil law which renders the contract incurably void as contrary to public policy on the ground of illegal basis of the contract attributable to the seller, cannot cause that taxable person to lose his right to deduct the tax?

               2.

               Is the answer different where the contract is incurably void for fraudulent evasion of VAT itself?

               3.

               Is the answer different where the illegal basis of the contract of sale, which makes it incurably void under domestic law, is fraudulent evasion of value added tax of which both contracting parties had knowledge?


title: Case C-510/06 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-329/01: Archer Daniels Midland Company v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/15

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-329/01: Archer Daniels Midland Company v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-510/06 P)
   (2007/C 56/28)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: C. Lenz, Prof. Dr., L. Alegi, E. Batchelor and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               i) set aside the Judgment in so far as it dismisses the application brought by ADM in respect of the Decision;

               —

               ii) annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to ADM;

               —

               iii) in the alternative to (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision to reduce further or cancel the fine imposed on ADM;

               —

               iv) in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the CFI for judgment of the ECJ as to the law;

               —

               v) in any event, order that the Commission bear its own costs and pay ADM's costs relating to the proceedings before the CFI and the ECJ.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The grounds relied upon Archer Daniels Midland Company (hereinafter ‘ADM’) in this appeal are:

               (1)

               the Court of First Instance (hereinafter ‘CFI’) infringes the duty to give reasons:

                           (a)

                           in rejecting ADM's plea that the increase in fines resulting from the Fines Guidelines was not necessary to ensure the implementation of EC competition policy.

                           (b)

                           by failing to respond to ADM's pleas that the evidence would show lack of impact if the market was wider.

               (2)

               the CFI errs in finding that the Commission satisfied the Pioneer
                   (1) test and justified the discretion to increase fines generally and in this case;

               (3)

               the CFI infringes the legal principles applicable to the calculation of fines by permitting the Commission to disregard relevant EEA product turnover as an appropriate starting point;

               (4)

               the CFI infringes the principle that the Commission must follow self-imposed rules:

                           (a)

                           by holding that the Commission can prove impact on a market without needing to respond to ADM's pleas that no relevant economic market was proven;

                           (b)

                           by permitting the Commission to disregard termination of the infringement as a relevant attenuating circumstances;

               (5)

               the CFI infringes the principle of equal treatment by finding that there were relevant factors distinguishing the far smaller fines imposed in Zinc Phosphates
                   (2), a directly comparable case;

               (6)

               the CFI reverses the burden of proof by requiring ADM to show that prices ‘but for’ the cartel would have been the same;

               (7)

               the CFI infringes Article 81 EC treaty:

                           (a)

                           by misapplying the law of cartels;

                           (b)

                           by concluding that the conduct at the June 1995 meeting in Anaheim was anticompetitive;

               (8)

               the CFI distorts the evidence:

                           (a)

                           in concluding that ADM's withdrawal is not supported by the evidence of other participants;

                           (b)

                           by finding that evidence of the June 1995 meeting was contemporaneous note written by Roquette at the meeting.

      (1)  Joined cases 100-103/80 SA Musique Diffusion Française and others V Commission [1983] ECR 1825.

      (2)  OJ L 153, P.1.


title: Case T-180/10: Action brought on 16 April 2010 — Nickel Institute v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/53

      Action brought on 16 April 2010 — Nickel Institute v Commission
      (Case T-180/10)
      (2010/C 161/84)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer and H. Pearson, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare the application for annulment admissible;

                  —

                  Annul the Commission Decision SG.E3/HP/psi–Ares(2010)65824 of 8 February 2010 to refuse full access to certain documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1); and

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision SG.E3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)65824 of 8 February 2010 to refuse full access to certain documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The decision confirmed, inter alia:

                  —

                  The decision of the acting Director-General of the Commission’s legal service to refuse full access to seven documents giving the opinion of this service on the draft of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC (2);

                  —

                  The decision of the Director of Directorate D of DG Environment to refuse full access to two documents giving opinions of other Commission directorates-general on the draft of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC; and

                  —

                  That no document, record or correspondence (including any follow up documents or comments thereon) exists in the Commission’s possession in which the legal service gives its view on the draft of Commission Directive 2009/2/EC. (3)

            In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward several pleas in law:

                  Firstly, the Secretary-General of the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 4(2), second indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in interpreting the exception relating to the protection of legal advice with regards to several of the requested documents.

                  In addition, the Secretary-General of the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 4(2), second indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in interpreting the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings with regards to the one of the requested documents.

                  Finally, the Secretary-General of the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 8(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in failing to identify and grant access to documents in which the legal service gives its view on the draft of Commission Directive 2009/2/EC.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, p. 43.

         (2)  Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 246, p. 1.

         (3)  Commission Directive 2009/2/EC of 15 January 2009 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 31st time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 11, p. 6.


title: Case T-53/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Aecops v Commission (ESF — Training operations — Reduction in financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Time-bar — Legal certainty — Rights of the defence — Reasonable period — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Aecops v Commission
   (Case T-53/11) (1)

   (ESF - Training operations - Reduction in financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Time-bar - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence - Reasonable period - Duty to state reasons)
   2013/C 156/71
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented initially by: J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro and subsequently by: L. Pinto Monteiro, P. Farinha Alves and N. Morais Sarmento, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Commission Decision C(89) 570 of 22 March 1989 for the funding of training operations (file 89 0771 P1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-52/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Sharif University of Technology v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Support to the Government of Iran — Research and technology development in military or military-related fields — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of law and error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Claim for damages)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Sharif University of Technology v Council
      (Case T-52/15) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Support to the Government of Iran - Research and technology development in military or military-related fields - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law and error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Claim for damages))
      (2016/C 211/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

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

         Re:

      Action for, first, annulment of Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 19), in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 3), in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) and, secondly, a claim for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sharif University of Technology to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-27/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG
   (Case C-27/13)
   2013/C 171/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and Respondent in the Appeal: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs-KG

      Defendant and Appellant in the Appeal: Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must a national court, asked to adjudicate a claim for recovery of benefits and for discontinuation of future benefits, regard these benefits as measures which under the third sentence of Art. 108(3) TFEU may not be implemented before a final decision by the European Commission (‘the Commission’), if the Commission has decided, unchallenged, to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure under Art. 108(2) TFEU in relation to these benefits, and has stated in the grounds of this decision, in essence, inter alia that these benefits probably constitute State aid?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is yes:
               Does the same apply if the Commission has moreover stated in the grounds of its decision, in essence, that it is not in a position to determine whether the provider of the benefits was acting as a normal private investor in a market economy [Or. 2] when it undertook to make the benefits available?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is no:
               May the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure?

               4.

               If the answer to question 3 is yes:
               Must the national court in such circumstances stay its proceedings until the conclusion of the formal State aid investigation procedure?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 11 May 1995 in the case of Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt (Case C-258/95)

text:
No C 268/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            is a law of a Member State which, in laying down the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 11 May 1995 in               procedural rules by which citizens who have a right to the
the case of Julius Fillibeck Sôhne GmbH &c Co KG v.                    reparation of damage conferred on them by Community law
                       Finanzamt Neustadt                              following the failure to implement directives which are not
                         ( Case C-258/95 )                             directly applicable, requires the injured party to bring
                             95/C 268/25 )
                                                                       judicial proceedings subject to a one-year limitation period
                                                                       starting from the date when the aforementioned domestic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 rules entered into force compatible with the correct
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as construed in
( Federal Finance Court ) — Fifth Senate — of 1 1 May 1 995 ,          the light of the principles laid down in the case-law of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1995 ,             Court of Justice cited in the grounds of this order, where, in
                                                                       contrast, under the domestic law of the Member State in
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Julius Fillibeck Sohne
GmbH & Co KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt on the following                    question actions for the reparation of non-contractual
questions :                                                            damage are normally subject to a five-year prescription
                                                                       period and the action for obtaining social security payments
1 . does the transport service of an employer constitute a             under the statutory system arising out of the full
    service 'effected for consideration' within the meaning            implementation of the Directive ( Directive 80/987/EEC of
    of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/3 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) — that is to    20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
    say, effected for a proportion to be estimated of the              Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
    work performed by the employees — where, pursuant to               event of the insolvency of the employer ) is subject to a
    a collective agreement, the employer carries employees             time-limit of one year, which, however, is a period of
     ( without specially agreed and calculated consideration )         prescription, thereby introducing, for the purposes of the
    from their homes to the workplace where they are more              judicial protection of rights based on Community law, a
    than a specified distance apart, and the work performed            procedural mechanism which differs in the aforementioned
    — which has no actual connection with such transport               respects from ' similar' actions and remedies provided for by
    services — is already to be carried out in return for the          the domestic law of the Member State in question, it being
    agreed money wages as in the case of the other                     pointed out that, in any event, all claims for payments to be
    employees ?                                                        made by the agency which is under a duty under the law to
                                                                       make reparation for the damage are subject at present to a
2 . Does Article 6 ( 2)ofDirective77/388/EECcovertheuse                one-year limitation period under the domestic law of the
    of goods forming part of the assets of the business or a           Member State in question ? Is the national court bound,
    service carried out free of charge even where — as in the          where appropriate , to disapply that limitation period,
    case of the carriage of employees from their homes to the          thereby enabling citizens who have suffered damage to bring
    workplace and back in a vehicle of the undertaking free            an action outside the one-year limitation period and, if so,
    of charge — it does not serve purposes other than those            within the five-year prescription period prescribed for the
    of the business as far as the employer is concerned , but          ordinary action for reparation or within the one-year
    does serve the employees' private purposes and the                 prescription period laid down for obtaining social security
    employees are not charged turnover tax in this respect             payments under the ' basic' system ?
     ( on account of their use free of charge of the transport
    service )?
3 . In the event that question 2 is answered in the
    affirmative : does Article 6 ( 2 ) of Directive 77/338/EEC
    also cover a case where the employer does not carry the
    employees in its own vehicles, but commissions a third             Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
    party ( in the instant case, one of its own employees ) to            European Communities against the French Republic
    effect the transport ?
                                                                                Case C-265 /95 )
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                                         95/C 268 /27
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
Circondariale di Frosinone by order of that court of 27 June           Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
        1995 in the case of Rosalba Palmisani v. INPS                  Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national official on
                         ( Case C-261/95 )
                                                                       secondment to the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                           ( 95/C 268/26 )                             Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 June 1995 of the                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Pretura Circondariale di Frosinone ( Magistrates' Court,               the Court should :
Fronsinone ), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                — declare that, by failing to adopt all the appropriate
Pasalba Palmisani v . INPS on the following question :                     measures necessary in order to prevent acts committed


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-170/95: Paolo Carrer v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Competition - Selection board - Decision by the selection board finding that a candidate had failed the oral test - Principle of equality of treatment - Infringement of the competition notice - Assessment by the selection board)

text:
24 . 8 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 247/ 15
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                nominations for the office of Ombudsman ' published on
                        of 11 July 1996                                23 May 1 995 ( OJ No C 127, 1995 , p. 4 ) and all related and
                                                                       consequential acts, the Court of First Instance ( Third
in Case T-102/95 : Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission of               Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf
                the European Communities (')                           and A. Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator,
(Officials — Members ofthe temporary staff— Contract of                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 1 July 1996 in
     employment — Transfer — Place of employment)                      which it :
                          ( 96/C 247/31 )
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks the
                                                                           annulment of the letter of the Secretary-General of the
               (Language of the case: French)                              European Parliament of 15 June 1995;
In Case T-102/95 : Jean-Pierre Aubineau , a member of the              2 . for the rest, dismisses the action as inadmissible;
temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges              3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire          (') O J No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Fabrizio
Minneci ) — application , first, for annulment of the decision
of the Director-General of the Joint Research Centre,
contained in his note of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily
transferring the applicant to the post of Adviser to the Head
of the Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics,              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Ispra and, second, for compensation for the non-material
damage alleged by the applicant — the Court of First                                           of 11 July 1996
Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts,                  in Case T-170/95 : Paolo Carrer v. Court of Justice of the
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio                                 European Communities (')
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision by
on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as                    the selection board finding that a candidate had failed the
follows :
                                                                       oral test — Principle of equality of treatment —
                                                                       Infringement ofthe competition notice — Assessment by the
1 . the application is dismissed;                                                               selection board)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/33 )
2 . each of the parties shall bear its own costs, including
     those relating to the procedure for interim relief.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       In Case T-170/95 : Paolo Carrer, residing at Kehlen
                                                                       ( Luxembourg ), an official of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Roberta Borlandi ,
                                                                       of the Genoa Bar, against the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Timothy Millett and
                                                                       Antonio Borruso ) — applications for the annulment of the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               oral test in internal competition by tests No CJ 51 /93 , the
                        of 11 July 1996                                annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority on
                                                                       the basis of the reserve list drawn up by the selection board
in Case T-146/95 : Giorgio Bernardi v. European
                                                                       for that competition , and the annulment of the decision of
                           Parliament ( 1 )
                                                                       the complaints committee of 15 June 1995 rejecting the
 (Actions for annulment of measures — Ombudsman —                      applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
Nominations — Appointment procedure — Inadmissibility                  Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the
             — Principle of non-discrimination)                        Chamber ), R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H.
                          ( 96/C 247/32 )                              Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 1996 , in
                                                                       which it :
               (Language of the case: French)                          1 . dismisses the action ;
In Case T-146/95 : Giorgio Bernardi , residing in                      2 . orders the defendant to bear its own costs and 1 /5 of the
Luxembourg, represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi , of the                     applicant 's costs, the latter to bear 4/5 of his costs .
Massa-Carrara Bar, and , at the hearing, by Siegfried
Vormann, of the Trier Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       (') OJ No C-299 , 1 1 . 11 . 1995 .
Luxembourg at the applicant's address, 33 Rue Godchaux ,
v. European Parliament ( Agents : Ezio Perillo and Christian
Pennera ) — application for the annulment of the ' Call for


title: Case C-540/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi S.L. v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/12

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi S.L. v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-540/10)
   2011/C 139/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi S.L. (represented by: C. Nicolau Castellanos, abogado)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   By order of 10 March 2011 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) declared that it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the action.


title: Case F-113/15: Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ e.a. v Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/55

         Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ e.a. v Commission
   (Case F-113/15)
   (2015/C 320/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ e.a. (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the Commission not to include the applicants on the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of’ the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the names of the Applicants are not included;

               —

               order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Applicants.


title: Case T-163/08: Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast v OHIM (Golden Toast)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/41

         Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast v OHIM (Golden Toast)
   (Case T-163/08)
   (2008/C 171/79)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast e.V. (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and G. Hasselblatt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2008 (Case R 761/2007-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Golden Toast’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 28-32, 39 and 41-44 (Application No 4 811 171).

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused in part, in respect of the goods in Classes 11 and 30.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of the obligation under the first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to state reasons, in that the appealed decision was based on lack of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, although that was not examined. In addition, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the conditions for the finding of descriptiveness of the trade mark applied for were misconstrued.

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


title: Case T-377/09: Action brought on 29 September 2009 — Mövenpick-Holding AG v OHIM (PASSIONATELY SWISS)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/58

         Action brought on 29 September 2009 — Mövenpick-Holding AG v OHIM (PASSIONATELY SWISS)
   (Case T-377/09)
   2009/C 282/108
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mövenpick-Holding AG (represented by: M. Taxhet, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 July 2009 and publish the application for registration of the mark PASSIONATELY SWISS (Application No 6 701 031),

               —

               In the alternative, declare that Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and (2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 does not preclude the registration of the mark, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 July 2009 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal,

               —

               In the alternative, vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 July 2009 and publish the mark PASSIONATELY SWISS (Application No 6 701 031) together with the declaration of the applicant that it disclaims any exclusive right to the element SWISS,

               —

               In the alternative, declare that Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and (2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 does not preclude the registration of the mark with the inclusion of the statement of the applicant, that it disclaims any exclusive right to the element SWISS, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 July 2009 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal,

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PASSIONATELY SWISS’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 41, 43 and 44 (Application No 6 701 031)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


23.1.1999             EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 20/29
      Removal from the register of Case C-296/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-377/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/48)                                                   (1999/C 20/51)
By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          By order of 9 October 1998, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-296/97 (Reference for a              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für           from the register of Case C-377/97: Commission of the
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Ulrich Gloger v. Bergamt          European Communities v. Greek Republic.
Kamen, intervener: Vertreter des Öffentlichen Interesses
beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
Westfalen (Representative of the Public Interest before the
Higher Administrative Court for the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
                                                                                C-240/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/52)
      Removal from the register of Case C-369/97 ( )1
                       (1999/C 20/49)                            By order of 14 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of        removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          C-240/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
from the register of Case C-369/97 (Reference for a              Ireland, interveners: Federal Republic of Germany,
preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutz-       Kingdom of Denmark and Council of the European Union
verband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth           v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener:
Co Gesellschaft mbH.                                             European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-382/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/50)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/53)
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-382/97 (Reference for a              By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof):             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Gerhard Köbler v. Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, For-          removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (Reference for
schung und Kunst.                                                a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
                                                                 Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.