title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2001 in Joined Cases T-133/98 and T-134/98 Hewlett Packard France and Hewlett Packard Europe BV, v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff classification of certain hardware for use in local area computer networks — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)

text:
C 161/14              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              2.6.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 7 February 2001                                                          of 13 February 2001
in Case T-89/98 National Association of Licensed Open-
cast Operators (NALOO) v Commission of the European                      in Joined Cases T-133/98 and T-134/98 Hewlett Packard
                         Communities (1)                                 France and Hewlett Packard Europe BV, v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(ECSC — UK market for electricity generating coal —
Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and             (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff
abusive royalties — Powers of the Commission — Duty to                   headings — Tariff classification of certain hardware for use
                           state reasons)                                in local area computer networks — Classification in the
                                                                                Combined Nomenclature)
                         (2001/C 161/30)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/31)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-89/98 National Association of Licensed Opencast
Operators (NALOO), whose registered office is in Newcastle
upon Tyne (United Kingdom), represented by M. Cran QC                    In Joined Cases T-133/98 and T-134/98 Hewlett Packard
and M. Hoskins, Barrister, with an address for service in                France, established in Courcouronnes (France), and Hewlett
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                  Packard Europe BV, established in Amstelveen (Netherlands),
ties (Agents: K. Leivo, M. Erhart and J. Flynn), supported by            represented initially by F. Goguel and A. Trager, and sub-
British Coal Corporation, whose registered office is in London,          sequently by F. Goguel and F. Foucault, avocats, with an
represented by D. Vaughan QC, D. Lloyd Jones, Barrister, and             address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
C. Mehta, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,          European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Tricot)
by National Power plc, whose registered office is in Swindon             — application for the annulment of Commission Decision
(United Kingdom), represented by D. Anderson and P. Roth,                98/406/EC of 16 June 1998 concerning the validity of certain
Barristers, and G. Chapman, Solicitor, with an address for               binding tariff information (OJ L 178, 1998, p. 45) in so far as
service in Luxembourg, and by PowerGen plc, whose registered             it requires the revocation of, in particular, in Case T-133/98,
office is in London, represented by P. Lasok, Barrister, and             Binding Tariff Information FR 12030199700151 and, in Case
N. Lomas, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg           T-134/98, FR 12030199701394, FR 12030199702134 and
— application for the annulment of Decision IV/E—3/NALOO                 FR 12030199702135 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
of the Commission of 27 April 1998 rejecting the applicant’s             Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdeca-
complaint concerning infringement of the ECSC Treaty — the               sas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2001,
J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;               in which it:
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2001, in which it:
                                                                         1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/406/EC of 16 June 1998
                                                                               concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information in
1.    Annuls Decision IV/E-3/NALOO of 27 April 1998;                           so far as it requires the revocation of Binding Tariff Information
                                                                               FR      12030199700151,              FR      12030199701394,
                                                                               FR 12030199702134 and FR 12030199702135;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the
      applicant;
                                                                         2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
3.    Orders the interveners British Coal Corporation, National                of the applicants.
      Power plc and PowerGen plc to pay their own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.98.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.98.


title: Case C-6/11: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Articles 3 and 4 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/10

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-6/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Articles 3 and 4 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient)
   2012/C 73/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daiichi Sankyo Company

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division, Patents Court) — Interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient

      Operative part of the order

   Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate relating to active ingredients which are not identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case C-583/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport policy — Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 — Road Transport — Administrative simplification and cooperation — Article 16(1) and (5) — National electronic register of road transport undertakings — Interconnection of national electronic registers)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/6

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
      (Case C-583/15) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport policy - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Road Transport - Administrative simplification and cooperation - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - Interconnection of national electronic registers))
      (2016/C 441/08)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, M. M. Farrajota and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Portuguese republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court

                  1)

                  Declares that, by failing to create a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by failing therefore to establish the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed in its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

                  2)

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016, p. 29.


title: Case C-9/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Maria Tirkkonen

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Maria Tirkkonen
   (Case C-9/17)
   (2017/C 086/21)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maria Tirkkonen

      Other party: Maaseutuvirasto

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(2)(a) of Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘public contract’ within the meaning of that directive encompasses a scheme

               —

               by which a public body seeks to obtain services in the market for a contractual period limited in advance by entering into contracts, subject to the conditions of a draft framework agreement annexed to the invitation to tender, with all economic operators who meet the individual requirements laid down in the tender documents in regard to the suitability of the offeror and to the service offered, and pass an examination more particularly described in the invitation to tender, and

               —

               which can no longer be joined during the currency of the contract?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-607/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 January 2012 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Commission decision refusing to transmit documents to a national competition authority — Application for interim measures — No interest in bringing proceedings — Disregard of formal requirements — Measures requested not provisional in character — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 January 2012 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
   (Case T-607/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Commission decision refusing to transmit documents to a national competition authority - Application for interim measures - No interest in bringing proceedings - Disregard of formal requirements - Measures requested not provisional in character - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 80/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany); and Henkel France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and É. Paroche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures in relation to the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) dismissing the request of the French competition authority that the Commission transfer to it, in the context of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, a number of documents produced in Case COMP/39.579.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-165/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLLEGE — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)
   (Case T-165/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLLEGE - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Investimust SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 508/2010-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam and Investimust SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 1 April 2004 in Case C-184/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Helmut Fröschl v Republik Österreich (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Proof of competence required in order to exercise a profession — Equivalent — Conditions — Professional experience acquired in another Member State — Principle of non-discrimination — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/30

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-184/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Helmut Fröschl v Republik Österreich (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Proof of competence required in order to exercise a profession - Equivalent - Conditions - Professional experience acquired in another Member State - Principle of non-discrimination - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services)
   (2004/C 118/54)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-184/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria), seeking to obtain, in the proceedings pending before that court between Helmut Fröschl and Republik Österreich, a preliminary ruling relating to the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber; F. Macken and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in a situation like that at issue in the main proceedings, professional experience is not recognised as equivalent to possession of the proof of competence required in order to work as a self-employed photographer, on the sole ground that that experience was acquired in the Member State of establishment and not in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21. 2. 2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 1999 in Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive 76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to transpose)

text:
19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 47/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           in respect of the expenditure of the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                                European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for 1993,
                                                                                in so far as it made an adjustment of ITL 778 000 000 for late
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                        payment for intervention purchases of beef and veal;
                                                                             2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                       of 28 October 1999
                                                                             3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay four-fifths of the costs and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to pay one-fifth.
in Case C-253/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
         (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)
                           (2000/C 47/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                              of 11 November 1999
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-253/97: Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza,
assisted by G. De Bellis) v Commission of the European                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive
Communities (Agent: P. Ziotti, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                     76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to transpose)
application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts
                                                                                (2000/C 47/02)
presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guid-
ance and Guarantee Fund for 1993 (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in                                      (Language of the case: German)
so far as it concerns the Italian Republic — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
of the Sixth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rappor-                                    in the European Court Reports)
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 1999,                   In Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communities
in which it:                                                                 (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                             (Agents: E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski) — application for a
1. Annuls Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997                     declaration that by not adopting, under Article 7 of Council
    on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States          Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            19.2.2000
certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic                    the proceedings pending before that court between Firma Söhl
environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23),                        & Söhlke and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation
programmes including quality objectives to reduce pollution                 of Articles 49, 204 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC)
by the substances in List II of the annex to that directive, the            No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 212a of
under the EC Treaty, — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed                   Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation (EC)
of R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for                No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
the President of the Sixth Chamber (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch                  19 December 1996 (OJ 1997, L 17, p. 1) and on the validity
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,                      and interpretation of Article 859 and the interpretation of
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                Articles 900 and 905 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
trar, has given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it:                No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
                                                                            implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
1. Declares that, by not adopting, in accordance with Article 7 of          p. 1), as amended by Article 1(29) of Commission Regulation
     Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution                (EC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 346, p. 1)
     caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the             — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
     aquatic environment of the Community, programmes including             (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber acting for the
     quality objectives to reduce pollution by 99 substances on List 1      President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragne-
     of the annex to the directive, which under the first indent of List    malm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
     II must be treated as List 11 substances, the Federal Republic of      Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;      11 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            1. Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                      2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation
                                                                                of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                                Community Customs Code contains a validly constituted and
                                                                                exhaustive set of rules on failures, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
                                                                                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                                which ‘have no significant effect on the correct operation of the
                                                                                temporary storage or customs procedure in question’.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                  2. (a) The terms used to qualify negligence in the German version
                                                                                of Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and
                       of 11 November 1999                                           of the Council of 19 December 1996, Article 239 of
                                                                                Regulation No 2913/92 and Article 859 of Regulation
in Case C-48/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                             No 2454/93 have one and the same meaning. In the
the Finanzgericht Bremen): Firma Söhl & Söhlke v                                     German version those terms must be understood as referring
                     Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)                                         to ‘offensichtliche Fahrlässigkeit’ (obvious negligence).
(Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation
— Exceeding of time-limits for the customs clearance of                         (b) It is not possible to conclude that there was no obvious
non-Community goods in temporary storage — Failure                                   negligence within the meaning of the second indent of
having ‘no significant effect on the correct operation of the                        Article 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where a customs
temporary storage or customs procedure in question’ —                                debt is incurred pursuant to Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation
          Extension of period — ‘Obvious negligence’)                                No 2913/92 as a result of behaviour which constitutes
                                                                                obvious negligence within the meaning of the second indent
                            (2000/C 47/03)                                           of Article 859 of Regulation No 2454/93.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (c) In order to determine whether there is ‘obvious negligence’
                                                                                within the meaning of the second indent of Article 239(1)
                                                                                of Regulation No 2913/92, account must be taken in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                particular of the complexity of the provisions non-compliance
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                with which has resulted in the customs debt being incurred
                                                                                and the professional experience of, and the care taken by, the
In Case C-48/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                         trader. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                            of those criteria, whether there is obvious negligence on the
(Finance Court) Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                         part of the trader.


title: Case C-425/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 17 September 2014 — Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, and Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF) v Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani and Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 17 September 2014 — Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, and Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF) v Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani and Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana
   (Case C-425/14)
   (2014/C 431/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, and Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF)

      Respondents: Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani and Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law, and in particular Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) preclude a provision — such as Article 1(17) of Law No 190/2012 — under which contracting authorities may treat as a legitimate ground for excluding undertakings from a tendering procedure for the award of a public procurement contract the non-acceptance, or the lack of documentary evidence of acceptance, by those undertakings of the commitments set out in legality protocols and, more generally, in agreements between the contracting authorities and participating undertakings which are intended to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the public contract awards sector?

               2.

               On a proper construction of Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, may legislation of a Member State conferring the power of exclusion described in Question 1 be regarded as a derogation from the principle that the grounds for exclusion are exhaustive which is justified by the overriding need to combat the attempted infiltration of organised crime into procedures for the award of public contracts?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 114).


title: Case C-451/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano) — Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v Giuseppe Calafiori (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Competition rules applicable to undertakings — State aid — Tax Advice Centres — Pursuit of certain tax advice and assistance activities — Exclusive right — Remuneration for such activities)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano) — Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v Giuseppe Calafiori
   (Case C-451/03) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - State aid - Tax Advice Centres - Pursuit of certain tax advice and assistance activities - Exclusive right - Remuneration for such activities)
   (2006/C 143/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte d'appello di Milano
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl

      Defendant: Giuseppe Calafiori
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 4, 10, 43, 48, 49, 82, 86, 87 and 98 EC — Compatibility of national rules relating to the declaration of income which confer on tax advice centres the exclusive right to provide certain consultation and assistance services to undertakings and their employees
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which reserves exclusively to Tax Advice Centres the right to pursue certain tax advice and assistance activities.

               2.

               A measure by which a Member State provides for the payment of compensation from State funds to certain undertakings responsible for helping taxpayers in connection with the completion of tax declarations and filing them with the tax authorities must be classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, where:

                           —

                           the level of the compensation exceeds what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations, and

                           —

                           the compensation is not determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with the means required so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 May 1995 in Case T-556/93: Monique Saby v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Accidents and professional diseases - Reopening of the accident file and full reimbursement of medical expenses)

text:
8 . 7 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 174/7
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                        of 30 May 1995                                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1
                                                                         Rue Glesener, against the Commission of the European
in Case T-556/93 : Monique Saby v. Commission of the                     Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for,
                  European Communities (')                               first, the annulment of the Commission's decision of
(Officials — Accidents and professional diseases —                       1 7 August 1993 not to reimburse the excess baggage charges
Reopening of the accident file and full reimbursement of                 incurred by the applicant's wife on a journey by air between
                       medical expenses)                                 the applicant's place of origin and place of work, and ,
                           ( 95 /C 174/ 11 )                             secondly, an order that the Commission reimburse those
                                                                         charges, the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
               (Language of the case: French)                            composed of: K. Lenaerts ( President of the Chamber ), R.
                                                                         Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas , Judges; B. Pastor,
In Case T-556/93 : Monique Saby, a former official of the                Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 May 1995 , the operative
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   part of which is as follows:
Mérète Turlin and Aloyse May, of the Luxembourg Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at their
Chambers, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European                    1 . the Commission decision of 17 August 1993 is
Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto                     annulled;
Dal Ferro ) — application, primarily, for the annulment of
the decision of the Commission of 3 August 1993 rejecting                2 . the Commission is ordered to pay the applicant Bfrs
the complaint submitted by the applicant on 3 May 1993 , in                   22 800, together with interest of 8% per annum, as
which she sought the reopening of her ' accident file ' and full              from 17 August 1993 until the date of effective
reimbursement, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff                            payment;
Regulations of officials of the European Communities , of
the medical and paramedical expenses incurred in respect of              3.   the Commission shall hear all the costs .
the care needed for her re-establishment and rehabilitation,
together with default interest at the rate of 8,5 % per annum
from 1 July 1991 ; alternatively, for the setting-up of a new            (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
medical committee with the task of taking a decision on the
causal connection between the care in question and the
accident justifying full reimbursement of the medical and
paramedical expenses relating to it and the award of the
compensation provided for by Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and A.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
30 May 1995 , in which it :
                                                                                of 17 May 1995
 1 . dismisses the application ;                                         in Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                           of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 95/C 174/ 13 )
 (') OJ No C 334 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  In Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau, a member of the
                        of 17 May 1995                                    temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
 in Case T-241/94 , Friedrich Nagel v. Commission of the                  Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar, v.
                  European Communities (')
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
 (Officials — Annual leave — Travel expenses — Excess                     Griesmar and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for
                        baggage charges)                                  suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
                            ( 95 /C 174/ 12 )                             Director-General of the Joint Research Centre, Ispra,
                                                                          contained in his note of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily
                (Language of the case: French)                            transferring the applicant to Ispra as Adviser to the Head of
                                                                          the Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics — the
 In Case T-241 /94 : Friedrich Nagel, official of the                     President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   17 May 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case C-408/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2012 by YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV, YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2012 in Case T-448/07: YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV, YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH v European Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/10

         Appeal brought on 5 September 2012 by YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV, YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2012 in Case T-448/07: YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV, YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-408/12 P)
   2012/C 343/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV, YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (represented by: D. Arts, W. Devroe, advocaten, E. Winter, Rechtsanwältin, F. Miotto, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 in Case T-448/07, YKK Cop., YKK Holding Europe BV and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH v. European Commission;

               —

               annul Article 2(1) and Article 2(3) of the contested Decision in so far as it concerns the Appellants and/or to reduce the relevant fines;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and for the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In their first ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by not adequately stating its reasons for rejecting their plea relating to the disproportionate starting amount of the fine, which makes it impossible for the Appellants to determine whether the General Court rejected their plea on the ground that the Commission (a) took sufficient account of the impact of the infringement on the market; or (b) did not take account of the impact of the infringement on the market because it did not have to. Secondly, should it appear that the General Court ruled that the Commission took sufficient account of impact on the market, the Appellants submit that, in so doing, the General Court misinterpreted the contested Decision and infringed EU law, in particular Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the case law of the ECJ, which require that the Commission, where it considers it appropriate to take into account impact on the market in order to increase the starting amount of the fine to more than the minimum likely amount of EUR 20 million fixed by the Guidelines (2), must provide specific, credible and adequate evidence to assess the actual influence of the infringement on competition in that market. Thirdly, should it appear that the General Court ruled that the Commission did not take into account impact on the market because it did not have to, the Appellants submit that, in so doing, the General Court misapplied EU law, according to which sanctions under national and EU law do not only have to be real and deterrent but also proportionate to the infringement committed.
   In their second ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court did not adequately state reasons for rejecting the applicants' plea concerning the Commission's failure to apply the 2002 Leniency Notice. The Appellants submit that, in any event, the General Court's judgment misinterprets EU law, in particular the lex mitior principle, according to which the more lenient law must apply retroactively.
   In their third ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that, by dismissing the applicants' plea relating to the incorrect application by the Commission of the 10 % ceiling to the fine in relation to the BWA cooperation for the period preceding Stocko's acquisition by YKK, for which Stocko is considered to be solely and exclusively liable, the General Court infringed Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 including the inherent principle of proportionality, the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and the offence, according to which an undertaking may be penalised only for acts imputed to it individually, and the principle of equal treatment.
   In their fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that, in dismissing the applicants' plea concerning the incorrect application by the Commission in the contested Decision of the multiplier for the period preceding the acquisition of Stocko, the General Court provided an inadequate statement of reasons and that, in any event, the General Court violated Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the enshrined principle that penalties must be specific to the individual concerned and the related principle of proportionality as well as the principle of equal treatment, by accepting that the increase for deterrence was justified for the period prior to Stocko's acquisition by YKK, for which Stocko has been held solely and exclusively liable.

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

      OJ 2003, L 001, p. 1.

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty

      OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3.


title: Case T-557/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Elsid and Others v Commission

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/29

         Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Elsid and Others v Commission
   (Case T-557/11)
   2011/C 370/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Elsid SA (Titu, Romania), ESD-SIC BV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), ESK-SIC GmbH (Frechen, Germany) and Navarro SIC, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 5934 final of 24 August 2011 rejecting the request for initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon carbide originating in the People’s Republic of China; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants, stressing incorrect application of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (1), rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           a breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. In parallel, or in the alterative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying a higher standard of evidence than that sufficient to accept a request for an expiry review.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in finding that Chinese exports to the US were not comparable to the products of the Union industry in the EU and concluding erroneously that the lower Chinese export price to the US than the Union industry’s prices in the EU was therefore unlikely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L343, 22.12.2009, p. 51


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2002 in Case C-167/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz Henkel (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Preventive action by associations — Consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms in consumer contracts)

text:
C 289/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         23.11.2002
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                     Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                          of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                            composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)           mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
from restricting or disallowing the deductibility for income tax            M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
purposes of contributions to voluntary pension schemes paid to              judgment on 1 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
pension providers in other Member States while allowing such
contributions to be deducted when they are paid to institutions in the      The rules on jurisdiction laid down in the Convention of 27 September
first-mentioned Member State, if that legislation does not at the           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
same time preclude taxation of the pensions paid by the abovemen-           Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968, as amended by the
tioned pension providers.                                                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                            Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24. 6. 2000.                                               Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                            Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May
                                                                            1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                                                                            Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
                                                                            Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                            Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that a preventive
                                                                            action brought by a consumer protection organisation for the purpose
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of preventing a trader from using terms considered to be unfair in
                                                                            contracts with private individuals is a matter relating to tort, delict or
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that convention.
                         of 1 October 2002                                  (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
in Case C-167/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Verein für Konsumenteninfor-
                 mation v Karl Heinz Henkel (1)
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Preventive
action by associations — Consumer protection organisation                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair
                   terms in consumer contracts)                                                        (First Chamber)
                           (2002/C 289/03)                                                           of 3 October 2002
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            in Case C-347/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Juzgado de lo Social n 3 de Orense): Ángel Barreira
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS),
                    in the European Court Reports)                               Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)
                                                                            (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 1(r) and (s)
In Case C-167/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                 and 46(2) — Award of pension rights — Periods of
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of             insurance completed before the materialisation of the risk —
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                  Periods of notional contribution)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Verein                                            (2002/C 289/04)
für Konsumenteninformation and Karl Heinz Henkel, on
the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                                          in the European Court Reports)
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and                    In Case C-347/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the                    EC by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Orense (Spain) for
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case T-137/01: Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
The dispute between the parties concerns the question of the             Pleas in law and main arguments
costs which the applicant must bear, in accordance with
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1135/1999, in its capacity as
a party awarded a contract for the procurement of agricultural           The applicant contests the abovementioned recovery decision
products.                                                                of the Commission demanding partial repayment of a total
                                                                         sum of EUR 20 000 transferred to the applicant in the
                                                                         context of the Eurathlon programme, in the amount of
The applicant argues that Article 6 of Regulation (EC)                   DEM 31 911,11, on the ground of impermissible profit.
No 1135/1999 does not oblige the party awarded the procure-
ment contract to draw up the transport documents for the
delivery of the goods to Russia by the party awarded the                 The applicant submits that the conditions for a demand for
transport contract, or to bear the costs thereof. All costs arising      repayment of the subsidy given, agreed between the parties
from the transport side of the tender were the responsibility of         when the subsidy was granted, are not met. In particular, the
the party awarded the transport contract. It was impossible for          final accounts for the project do not show a profit, so that the
the procurer to supply appropriate transport documents.                  demand for repayment is unlawful. The defendant might at
                                                                         most be entitled to a proportionate share of 18,4 % of the
                                                                         surplus. It is, however, demanding payment of the entire
In the alternative, the applicant bases its claim on failure by          (incorrectly calculated) surplus.
the Commission to fulfil its precontractual duty of providing
information. As the interpretation of the provision in dispute,
and thus the scope of the contractual obligation, was not                Moreover, the applicant relies on limitation of the defendant’s
clearly formulated, the Commission should have informed the              claims. It submits that the ISO 1994 event took place in 1994,
applicant on the point. Failure to provide such information              and any claims for repayment arose in that year. The notice to
caused loss to the applicant.                                            pay dates from 9 April 2001, however, and was therefore
                                                                         made at least six years in law after the alleged debt arose.
(1) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of
    17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural
    products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 12) and
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999
    laying down general rules for the application of Council Regu-
    lation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural
    products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Comafrica SpA
(2) OJ 1999 L 135, p. 85.                                                and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co. against the
(3) OJ 1999 L 242, p. 13.                                                         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-139/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/43)
Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportverband
Neuss e.V. against Commission of the European Com-                                          (Language of the case: English)
                             munities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-137/01)                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 19 June 2001 by Comafrica SpA,
                         (2001/C 245/42)                                 Genoa, Italy, and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co., Ham-
                                                                         burg, Germany, represented by Bernard O’Connor and Philip
                                                                         Bastos G. Martin of O’Connor and Company, Brussels
                   (Language of the case: German)                        (Belgium).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportver-                   —     declare the application admissible;
band Neuss e.V. of Neuss, Germany, represented by Heinz
Günther Hüsch, lawyer.                                                   —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC,
                                                                               Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 in so far as it
                                                                               affects the applicants, or in the alternative to declare the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    said regulation void erga omnes;
—      Annul the recovery decision of the European Commission            —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC,
       of 9 April 2001, account number 3240302372;                             Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 in so far as
                                                                               it affects the applicants, alternatively, to declare the said
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   regulation void erga omnes;


title: Case T-242/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face with horns) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a face with horns — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face with horns)
   (Case T-242/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a face with horns - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 836/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face with horns.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2014 (Case R 836/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Implementation — Legality — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Single and continuous infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Exclusively passive role — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Imputability of unlawful conduct)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Implementation - Legality - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Single and continuous infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Exclusively passive role - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Imputability of unlawful conduct)
   2012/C 6/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: RKW SE, formerly RKW AG Rheinische Kunststoffwerke (Worms, Germany), and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA (Worms) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders RKW SE and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-411/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Preferential electricity tariff — Decision 2011/746/EU — Aid incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/17

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-411/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Preferential electricity tariff - Decision 2011/746/EU - Aid incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   2014/C 52/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, assisted by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) — Obligation to recover without delay the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to notify the Commission of the measures taken.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover from Portovesme Srl and Eurallumina SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 2 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-294/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — Fialtor v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/31

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Fialtor v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-294/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 026/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fialtor Ltd (Berlize City, Berlize) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Fialtor Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case F-8/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — Apostolov v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action inadmissible — Delay)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — Apostolov v Commission
   (Case F-8/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action inadmissible - Delay)
   2010/C 37/78
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apostolov (Saarwellingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addaeh-Mensah, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve list for selection procedure EPSO/CAST27/4/07

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Mr Apostolov to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009, p. 16.


title: Case C-427/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 16 August 2011 — Margaret Kenny and others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Finance, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 16 August 2011 — Margaret Kenny and others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Finance, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána
   (Case C-427/11)
   2011/C 311/41
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Margaret Kenny, Patricia Quinn, Nuala Condon, Eileen Norton, Ursula Ennis, Loretta Barrett, Joan Healy, Kathleen Coyne, Sharon Fitzpatrick, Breda Fitzpatrick, Sandra Hennelly, Marian Troy, Antoinette Fitzpatrick, Helena Gatley

      Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Finance, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances where there is prima facie indirect gender discrimination in pay, in breach of Article 141 (now Article 157 TFEU) and Council Directive 75/117/EEC (1), in order to establish objective justification, does the employer have to provide:

                           (a)

                           Justification in respect of the deployment of the comparators in the posts occupied by them;

                           (b)

                           Justification of the payment of a higher rate of pay to the comparators; or

                           (c)

                           Justification of the payment of a lower rate of pay to the complainants?

               2.

               In circumstances where there is prima facie indirect gender discrimination in pay, in order to establish objective justification, does the employer have to provide justification in respect of:

                           (a)

                           The specific comparators cited by the complainants and/or

                           (b)

                           The generality of comparator posts?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2(b) is in the affirmative, is objective justification established notwithstanding that such justification does not apply to the chosen comparators?

               4.

               Did the Labour Court, as a matter of Community Law, err in accepting that the ‘interests of good industrial relations’ could be taken into account in the determination of whether the employer could objectively justify the difference in pay?

               5.

               In circumstances where there is prima facie indirect gender discrimination in pay, can objective justification be established by reliance on the industrial relations concerns of the respondent? Should such concerns have any relevance to an analysis of objective justification?

      (1)  Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women
   OJ L 45, p. 19


title: Case C-228/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Jörn Petersen v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4(1)(b) and (g), Article 10(1) and Article 69 — Freedom of movement for persons — Articles 39 EC and 42 EC — Statutory pension and accident insurance scheme — Benefit for reduced capacity to work or incapacity to work — Advance payment to unemployed persons who apply for the grant of a benefit — Whether the benefit is an unemployment benefit or an invalidity benefit — Residence qualification)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Jörn Petersen v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich
   (Case C-228/07) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(1)(b) and (g), Article 10(1) and Article 69 - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 39 EC and 42 EC - Statutory pension and accident insurance scheme - Benefit for reduced capacity to work or incapacity to work - Advance payment to unemployed persons who apply for the grant of a benefit - Whether the benefit is an ‘unemployment benefit’ or an ‘invalidity benefit’ - Residence qualification)
   (2008/C 285/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jörn Petersen

      Defendant: Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 39 EC and of Article 4(1)(b) and (g) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Whether a monetary payment from unemployment insurance, not subject to the condition that the applicant be capable of working or ready for work, and payable as an advance, pending a final decision, only to unemployed persons having previously applied for a benefit under the statutory pension and accident insurance scheme on the ground of reduced capacity for work or incapacity for work, to be classified as an unemployment benefit or as an invalidity benefit — National legislation suspending that benefit if the unemployed person concerned lives in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996;

               2.

               Inasmuch as no factor has been put forward which shows that such a condition is objectively justified and proportionate, Article 39 EC must be interpreted as preventing a Member State from making the grant of a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71, subject to the condition that the recipients be resident in the national territory of that State.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-374/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/91)
   By order of 19 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/02: Commission of the European v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Case T-32/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/27

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)
   (Case T-32/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/49
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the SLOM holding — Limitation period)

text:
5.5.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 134/15
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2.    Declares that the period in respect of which the applicant must
                                                                                be compensated for the losses sustained as a result of the
                                                                                application of Regulation No 857/84 is that beginning on
                        of 31 January 2001                                       11 December 1988 and ending on the date of delivery of this
                                                                                judgment. That amount must include the purchase price of a
                                                                                reference quantity equivalent to the one the applicant should
in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the Euro-                           have obtained pursuant to Regulation No 857/84;
pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties (1)                                    3.    Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within six months
                                                                                of this judgment, particulars of the amounts to be paid,
                                                                                established by mutual agreement;
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                     4.    Orders the parties, in the absence of an agreement, to submit
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the                           to the Court within the same period their quantified claims;
             SLOM holding — Limitation period)
                                                                           5.    Reserves the costs.
                          (2001/C 134/31)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 90 of 26.3.94.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma, residing in Engelbert (Nether-
lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-
horst, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Council of the European Union (Agent:                                         of 30 November 2000
A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — application for
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of                 in Case T-5/97: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented                     (Competition — Action for annulment — Rejection of a
from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)                  complaint — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                  EC) — Misuse of the anti-dumping procedure — Statement
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation                           of reasons — Rights of the defence)
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ
1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation                                          (2001/C 134/32)
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the additional levy referred to in
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132,                                       (Language of the case: French)
p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and                     In Case T-5/97: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques,established
P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for              in Annemasse (France), represented by C. Momège, of the Paris
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
which it:                                                                  Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, against Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: F. Mascardi and
1.   Declares that the defendants are bound to make good the               A. Carnelutti ) supported by Péchiney Électrométallurgie,
     damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the application      established in Courbevoie (France), represented by J.-P. Gunther
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                and O. Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue
     in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk               Goethe — application for annulment of the Commission
     and milk products sector, as supplemented by Commission               decision of 7 November 1996, rejecting the applicant’s request
     Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down                for a finding that an infringement of Article 86 of the EC
     detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred    Treaty (now Article 82 EC) had allegedly been committed by
     to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as          Péchiney Electrométallurgie (Case No IV/35.151./E-I IPS/Péchi-
     those regulations did not make provision for the allocation of a      ney Électrométallurgie) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
     reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to an undertaking       Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-
     given under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May             Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and
     1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing           N. Forwood, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
     of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds,      has given a judgment on 30 November 2000, in which it:
     did not deliver milk during the reference year opted for by the
     Member State concerned;                                               1.    Dismisses the application;


title: Case F-65/09: Action brought on 2 July 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/43

         Action brought on 2 July 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-65/09)
   2009/C 220/89
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the claim of 25 November 2002, if necessary and appropriate by not applying to this dispute, pursuant to Article 241 EC, Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, the rules [on sickness insurance] and, lastly, the alleged opinion of the Medical Council;

               —

               annul the memorandum of 5 August 2008;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the measure rejecting the complaint of 1 November 2008;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the memorandum of 4 March 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the damage resulting from the measures annulment of which is sought in this application, the sum of EUR 25 000 or such greater or lesser sum the Tribunal may consider fair and just in that regard.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-230/00: Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Daesang Corporation and Sewon Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 316/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.11.2000
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles                Pleas in law and main arguments
       Ltd. against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        The factual and legal framework is similar to that in cases
                         (Case T-227/00)                                T-220/00, T-223/00 and T-224/00.
                         (2000/C 316/64)
                                                                        The applicants’ sole submission is that the amount of the fine
                                                                        imposed on them by the decision violates several rules and
                                                                        principles of Community law and should be substantially
                  (Language of the case: English)                       reduced. The specific claims of the applicants are the following:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 —     the application of the new fining rules violates fundamen-
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    tal principles of legal certainty
Communities on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Ltd.,
represented by Philippe De Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels.
                                                                        —     the failure to take into account the EEA lysine turnover
                                                                              of the applicants violates the principle of proportionality
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     in determining the starting point for the fine, the
—     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)                       Commission did not correctly assess the considerable
      No. 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;              disparity between the sizes of the undertakings concerned
      and,                                                                    and, as a result, discriminated against the applicants
—     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                        —     the Commission has incorrectly applied the Leniency
                                                                              Notice (1) with regard to the applicants and thereby denied
                                                                              the applicants the substantial reduction in the fine to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               which they are entitled
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                —     in determining the fine imposed on the applicants, the
invoked in case T-226/00, Nan Ya Plastics/Council.                            Commission has failed to take into account, as an
                                                                              attenuating circumstance, the limited extent to which the
                                                                              applicants implemented the offending agreements.
                                                                        (1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
                                                                            in cartel cases, OJ C 207, of 18 July 1996, p. 4.
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Daesang Corpor-
ation and Sewon Europe GmbH against the Commission
                of the European Communities
                         (Case T-230/00)
                         (2000/C 316/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di
                                                                        Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’
                  (Language of the case: English)                            against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (Case T-231/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Daesang
                                                                                (2000/C 316/66)
Corporation and Sewon Europe GmbH, represented by Jean-
François Bellis, Andrzej Kmiecik and Stephanie Reinart of Van
Bael & Bellis, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      by Commission Decision C (2000) 1565 final of 7 June              European Communities on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di
      2000; and                                                         Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’,
                                                                        represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
—     order the Commission to bear the costs.                           the Rome and Venice Bars.


title: Case F-34/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — ZZ v ACER

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/46

         Action brought on 11 April 2014 — ZZ v ACER
   (Case F-34/14)
   2014/C 184/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contractual agent contract and a claim of damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of ACER concerning the non-renewal of the applicant’s employment contract with ACER for the second time;

               —

               order the defendant to pay an amount of 10.000 euros as damages for the moral harm that the applicant suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.