title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, 1.a Secção, 2.a Subsecção by judgment of that court of 27 October 1998 in the case of Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu against Frota Azul - Transportes e Turismo, Lda. (Case C-413/98)

text:
6.2.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 33/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant
                    of 17 December 1998                                  at ECU 2 950 000;
       in Case C-185/95 P: Baustahlgewebe GmbH v
                                                                     3. For the rest, dismisses the appeal;
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Duration of procedure Ð                    4. Orders the appellant to bear its own costs and three
Preparatory inquiries Ð Access to the file Ð Competition                 quarters of the Commission's costs.
Ð Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Ð Fines)
                       (1999/C 33/01)                                (1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
              (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                     Tribunal Administrativo, 1.a SeccËaÄo, 2.a SubseccËaÄo by
                                                                     judgment of that court of 27 October 1998 in the case of
In Case C-185/95 P: Baustahlgewebe GmbH, a company
                                                                     Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do
incorporated under German law, established in
                                                                     Fundo Social Europeu against Frota Azul Ð Transportes e
Gelsenkirchen (Germany), represented by Joachim
                                                                                Turismo, Lda.
Sedemund and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                           (Case C-413/98)
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue Ð appeal                                               (1999/C 33/02)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995
in Case T-145/89 Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1995]                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ECR II-987, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the             European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the              Tribunal Administrativo, 1.a SeccËaÄo, 2.a SubseccËaÄo
European      Communities      (Agents:      initially  Bernd        (Second Sub-Chamber of the First Chamber of the
Langeheine, then Paul Nemitz, assisted by Alexander                  Supreme Administrative Court) of 27 October 1998,
Böhlke) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                    which was received at the Court Registry on 20 November
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                  1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho              Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do
de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm                            Fundo Social Europeu against Frota Azul Ð Transportes e
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and                Turismo, Lda. on the following questions:
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. A.
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it:                         1. Under Council Regulation No 2950/83 (1), must a
                                                                         decision by a Member State not to certify the accuracy
                                                                         of the facts and accounts concerning the portion of the
1. Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the                       expenditure in respect of a training operation to which
    judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April                   the European Social Fund (ESF) has contributed, on
    1995 in Case T-145/89 Baustahlgewebe v Commission                    the ground that: it does not correspond to the actual
    in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on               cost of the goods and services on the domestic market;
    the appellant at ECU 3 million;                                      the cost of services submitted exceeds the maximum
 ---pagebreak--- C 33/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 6.2.1999
   laid down in the Member State; the administrative                   approved expenditure, that the expenditure has
   costs charged are excessive; the quantities and types of            remained within the overall ceilings of each item and
   materials used bear no relation to the operation or the             that it is accounted for by formally acceptable
   quantities are not justified by that specific operation;            documents in accordance with the applicable
   or on similar grounds, be deemed to be a decision as                accounting rules?
   to the ineligibility of the expenditure, or is it, on the
   contrary, a decision which falls within the scope of
   negative certification of the accuracy of the facts and
   accounts in payment claims, pursuant to the second               5. Is the application to the expenditure incurred of
   part of Article 5(4) of that regulation?                            substantive assessment criteria, namely, whether such
                                                                       expenditure corresponds to actual market prices,
                                                                       whether the administrative costs of the undertaking
                                                                       which carried out the training course have been
2. Does the reduction of the national contribution,                    properly charged, whether the use of a certain
   decided upon by the competent national body when                    quantity or even a certain type of materials is
   clearing and paying the final balance, as a result of               unreasonable (e.g. materials more costly than others
   failure to certify certain expenditure on the grounds               equally suitable) with a view to organising a specific
   set out in the preceding question, entail, pursuant to              training course, capable of reserving a power of
   the combined provisions of Article 5(4), the first part             assessment to Community bodies, with the result that
   of Article 7(1) of the regulation and Article 5(1)                  those criteria must be identical and thus all traders
   and (5) of Decision 83/516/EEC, a corresponding                     within the Community be accorded equal treatment,
   proportional reduction in the amount of Community                   with the implications which that entails for the
   assistance (2), so that any reassessment by the                     interpretation and application of Article 5(4) of
   Community bodies of the correctness or accuracy of                  Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83?
   the facts and accounts in respect of such expenditure,
   such as to enable the ESF none the less to make its full
   contribution, serves no purpose and is not viable?
                                                                    6. Does the power reserved to the Commission, to the
                                                                       exclusion of other bodies, to suspend, reduce or
                                                                       withdraw the Fund's assistance, laid down in
3. Likewise, where, having found serious irregularities                Article 6(1) of the regulation, extend to the
   vitiating the entire framework within which the                     suspension, reduction or withdrawal of the national
   financing was assessed and granted, a Member State                  contribution' by the national body which manages aid
   decides, upon receiving a claim for final payment of                for training purposes?
   the balance pursuant to Article 5(4) of the regulation,
   to withdraw national assistance, despite the fact that
   some kind of training course was organised, or that                 Accordingly, if the competent national body is not
   the course was only a sham, does the body managing                  precluded by Community law from suspending,
   the ESF cease to have any discretion, and is there no               reducing or withdrawing the national assistance, does
   justification for it to take a final decision, by virtue of         the adoption of a decision of that kind after
   the fact that any possibility of a Community                        submission of the claim for final payment take
   contribution towards that course is irretrievably                   immediate and automatic effect in respect of the
   precluded, and that the withdrawal of assistance' has              corresponding proportion of the Community
   even at Community level already taken effect in law,                contribution and, in addition, does it allow the
   simply because the national body has taken a decision               national body to demand the immediate repayment of
   to that effect and because that preclusion follows                  the national contribution, or of the national
   necessarily and automatically, being contained in the               contribution and the Community contribution?
   abovementioned articles of the regulation and the
   decision, as well as in the rules set out in general terms
   in the aforementioned provisions of Community law,
   inasmuch as they govern participation in financing'                Or else, is it an absolute requirement of Community
   and contribution by the Fund' since, in the                        law that the national body must restrict itself to not
   circumstances set forth above, situations of that kind              certifying certain expenditure and await a final
   would no longer arise?                                              decision from the Commission and can only then
                                                                       demand repayment of any amount advanced on
                                                                       account of final payment for the operation, since it is
                                                                       only then, on fulfilment of the precondition of the
4. Must certification of the accuracy of the facts and                passing of time, that it is lawfully vested with power
   accounts in payment claims' be understood as                        to make decisions regarding the recovery or repayment
   excluding any assessment whatever as to whether the                 of sums paid or granted but not due?
   expenditure is justified by the operation actually
   carried out, the cost of goods and services on the
   domestic market, and the reasonableness of the costs
   charged within a complex structure, and therefore as             7. May certification of the accuracy of the facts and
   requiring such assessment to be restricted to a formal              accounts in claims for final payment in respect of
   verification that the expenditure submitted refers to               training courses, as referred to in the second part of
 ---pagebreak--- 6.2.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 33/3
     Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83,                 Regulation (EEC) No 838/93, extend back only to the
     be validly effected only by means of an entry in box 18              point in time when the areas under cultivation ceased
     of the form set out in Annex II to Commission                        to be farmed extensively or is the discrepancy to be
     Decision 83/673 (3) of 22 December 1983 when the                     calculated and deducted for the whole period of the
     claim for final payment is forwarded, pursuant to the                undertaking?
     first indent of Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) and (4) as
     well as Article 6(1) and (2) of the abovementioned
     decision, or do those provisions apply only to                  3. What are the criteria for determining whether there
     inter-departmental procedural formalities, of no                     is a serious infringement within the meaning of
     external relevance since they are not essential, which               Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as
     do not make it impossible for the department                         amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93?
     concerned subsequently to issue a certificate which
     differs from the first certificate, either as a separate
     document or on a fresh form, provided that, in either           (1) OJ L 361, 29.12.1988, p. 13.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 88, 8.4.1993, p. 16.
     case, it takes account of the legal nature of the
     measures in question and complies with the limits and
     conditions laid down by national law for making the
     relevant alteration?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1).           Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
(2) Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983,
    p. 38).                                                                                (Case C-439/98)
(3) Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on
    the management of the European Social Fund (OJ L 377,
                                                                                (1999/C 33/04)
    31.12.1983, p. 1).
                                                                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
                                                                     Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of
                                                                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               17 September 1998 in the case of
   Landerzeugergemeinschaft e.G. Gross Godems against
                Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case C-414/98)
                         (1999/C 33/03)
                                                                     1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the European Communities by order of the                                  Commission Directive 95/30/EC (1) of 30 June 1995
Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Administrative Court,                        adapting to technical progress Council Directive
Schwerin) of 17 September 1998, received at the Court                     90/679/EEC (2) of 20 November 1990 on the
Registry on 20 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling                    protection of workers from risks related to exposure
in the case of Landerzeugergemeinschaft (agricultural                     to biological agents at work (seventh individual
producer group) e.G. Gross Godems against Amt für                         Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Landwirtschaft Parchim (Office for Agriculture, Parchim)                  Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), or by failing                 to
on the following questions:                                               communicate such provisions, the Italian Republic has
                                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1. Does the penalty laid down by the first sentence of
     Article 16(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 (1), as            2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93 (2), still
     apply where the discrepancy between the number of
     units for which the aid is requested and the number of
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     units measured is not more than 10 % of the area but
     more than two hectares?
                                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
2. Does the reduction with regard to aid paid in advance,            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     laid down by the second sentence of Article 16(1) of            upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
     Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as amended by                      Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid


title: Case C-359/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)) — Donat Cornelius Ebert v Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara (Lawyers — Directive 89/48/EEC — Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained — Use of the professional title of the host Member State — Conditions — Registration with the Bar Association of the host Member State)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)) — Donat Cornelius Ebert v Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara
   (Case C-359/09) (1)

   (Lawyers - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration - Directive 98/5/EC - Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained - Use of the professional title of the host Member State - Conditions - Registration with the Bar Association of the host Member State)
   2011/C 103/08
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Donat Cornelius Ebert

      Defendant: Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Legislation of a Member State reserving the possibility of practising law, using the professional lawyer’s title of that State, to lawyers who are registered with the Bar Association in that Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Neither Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, nor Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained preclude national rules laying down the requirement to be a member of a body such as a Bar Association in order to practise the profession of lawyer under the title of lawyer of the host Member State.

               2.

               Directives 89/48 and 98/5 complement one another by establishing two means by which lawyers from Member States may gain admission to the profession of lawyer in a host Member State under the professional title of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


C 134/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                     Removal from the register of Case C-103/99 (1)
istrative d’Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by
judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of
Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v                                   (2001/C 134/22)
                           GEMO SA
                                                                     By order of 7 November 2000 the President of the Court of
                        (Case C-126/01)                              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-103/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 134/19)                               ruling from Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): P. Moskof
                                                                     AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Lyon (Administrative Court of Appeal,             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Lyons) (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de l’Économie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA on the following
question:
‘Does the charge on meat purchases provided for under
Article 302 bis ZD of the Code Général des Impôts form part
of an arrangement which may be regarded as aid within the
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957                        Removal from the register of Case C-84/99 (1)
establishing the European Community (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC)?’                                                                            (2001/C 134/23)
                                                                     By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-84/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Amsterdamsche
                                                                     Football Club ‘AJAX’ and Langenberg Participaties BV, also
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/00 (1)                 trading under the name ‘Fan Promotions’ v S.C. Reule and
                                                                     Others.
                       (2001/C 134/20)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-91/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-163/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-90/00 (1)                                        (2001/C 134/24)
                       (2001/C 134/21)                               By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-163/00: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
from the register of Case C-90/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 November 1995 in Case T-127/95: Société auxiliaire d'entreprises v. Commission of the European Communities (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement proceedings - Action for annulment - Action for declaration of failure to act - Inadmissible)

text:
No C 16/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 November 1995
2, there is no need to rule on the application to                     in Case T-128/95 : Aéroports de Paris v. Commission of the
     intervene;                                                                            European Communities (*)
                                                                      (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement
3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay         proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for
     the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is                       declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)
     ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection                                         ( 96/C 16/32 )
     with the submission of its application to intervene.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                      In Case T-128/95 : Aéroports de Paris, established in Paris,
                                                                      represented by Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) —
                                                                      application, primarily, for annulment of the decision of the
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate proceedings
                     of 13 November 1995                              against the Hellenic Republic for infringement of
                                                                      Community law with respect to the award of the public
    in Case T-127/95 : Société auxiliaire d'entreprises v.            contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
        Commission of the European Communities ( J )                  alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has
(Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement            failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for                       composed of C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
         declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)                Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                            { 96/C 16/31 )                             13 November 1 995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                 (Language of the case: French)                        1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
In Case T-127/95 : Société auxiliaire d'entreprises,                  2 , there is no need to rule on the application to
established at Issy-les-Molineaux ( France ), represented by                 intervene;
Alexandre Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar, v. Commission of the
European Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) —
application, primarily, for the annulment of the decision of          3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay
the Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate                              the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is
proceedings against the Hellenic Republic for infringement                   ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection
of Community law with respect to the award of the public                     with the submission of its application to intervene.
contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has               f 1 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
composed of C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
 13 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
 1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 November 1995
2 , there is no need to rule on the application to                     in Case T-168/95 R: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA
      intervene;                                                                and Others v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                96/C 16/33 )
 3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay
      the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection
      with the submission of its application to intervene.             In Case T- 1 68/95 R: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA,
                                                                       established in Genoa ( Italy ), Industria Saccarifera Italiana
 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                     Agroindustriale SpA (ISI ), established in Padua (Italy ),
                                                                        Sadam Zuccherifici, established in Bologna ( Italy ), Sadam
                                                                        Castiglionese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo
                                                                        SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,


title: Case T-174/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Commission v Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional (Arbitration clause — Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of telematic applications of common interest — Encata Project — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Late-payment interest — Default procedure)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Commission v Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional
   (Case T-174/08) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of telematic applications of common interest - Encata Project - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Late-payment interest - Default procedure)
   (2009/C 32/63)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Afonso, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA (Setúbal, Portugal)
   Re:
   Action under Article 238 EC seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the European Community, together with late-payment interest, under contract SU 1001 (SU) Encata.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA to reimburse to the Commission of the European Communities the sum of EUR 63 349,27, together with late-payment interest:

                           —

                           at the rate of 6.29 % per annum from 31 January 2001 to the date of the present judgment;

                           —

                           at the annual rate applied under Irish law, that is to say, currently Article 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act 1840, as amended, up to the rate of 6.29 % per annum from the date of the present judgment to full clearance of the debt;

               2.

               Orders Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-284/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH (State aid — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — Benefits granted by a public airport operator to a low-cost airline — Decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure in respect of that measure — Obligation of Member States’ courts to abide by the Commission’s assessment in that decision concerning the existence of aid)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH
   (Case C-284/12) (1)

   (State aid - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Benefits granted by a public airport operator to a low-cost airline - Decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure in respect of that measure - Obligation of Member States’ courts to abide by the Commission’s assessment in that decision concerning the existence of aid)
   2014/C 39/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Defendant: Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Ryanair Ltd

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Interpretation of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(3) TFEU and Article 2(b)(i) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17) — State aid — Benefits granted by a public airport operator to a low-cost airline — Commission decision to carry out a formal investigation in respect of that aid — Possible obligation of Member States’ courts to abide by the Commission’s assessment concerning the selective nature of that aid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, the European Commission has initiated the formal examination procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to a measure which has not been notified and is being implemented, a national court hearing an application for the cessation of the implementation of that measure and the recovery of payments already made is required to adopt all the necessary measures with a view to drawing the appropriate conclusions from an infringement of the obligation to suspend the implementation of that measure.
   To that end, the national court may decide to suspend the implementation of the measure in question and order the recovery of payments already made. It may also decide to order provisional measures in order to safeguard both the interests of the parties concerned and the effectiveness of the European Commission’s decision to initiate the formal examination procedure.
   Where the national court entertains doubts as to whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU or as to the validity or interpretation of the decision to initiate the formal examination procedure, it may seek clarification from the European Commission and, in accordance with the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU, it may or must refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-378/09: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spar v OHIM — Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP — Earlier national figurative marks SPAR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spar v OHIM — Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP)
   (Case T-378/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP - Earlier national figurative marks SPAR - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 73/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Schenefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 123/2008-1) in relation to opposition proceedings between Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-269/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 — Socratec v Commission ( Competition — Concentrations — Market in road traffic telematic systems — Applicant declared insolvent in course of proceedings — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate )

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 — Socratec v Commission
   (Case T-269/03) (1)

   (‘Competition - Concentrations - Market in road traffic telematic systems - Applicant declared insolvent in course of proceedings - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate’)
   2009/C 180/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH (Regensburg) (represented by: M. Adolf and M. Lüken, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially S. Rating, then A. Whelan and K. Mojzesowicz, and latterly K. Mojzesowicz and X. Lewis, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV (Waarle, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Berrisch and D.W. Hull, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Daimler AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany); Daimler Financial Services AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler Services AG (Berlin, Germany); Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany); Toll Collect GmbH (Berlin) (represented by: J. Schütze and A. von Graevenitz, lawyers); and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially C. D. Quassowski and S. Flockermann, then M. Lumma, agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein and A. Rosenfeld, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 — DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom Joint Venture) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               orders Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, Daimler AG, Daimler Financial Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Toll Collect GmbH;

               3.

               orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs;

               4.

               orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


title: Case C-419/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Gerald Feichter (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ — Promissory note — Aval — Guarantee provided for a credit contract)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Gerald Feichter
   (Case C-419/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ - Promissory note - Aval - Guarantee provided for a credit contract)
   2013/C 141/08
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Městský soud v Praze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Česká spořitelna, a.s.

      Defendant: Gerald Feichter

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Městský soud v Praze — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ — Jurisdiction in a dispute relating to an obligation of a manager of a company having given the aval to a blank promissory note issued by that company in favour of a bank to guarantee a credit agreement — Determination of the place of performance of the obligation where the promissory note did not originally indicate the place of payment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of that provision when he gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company under a contract for the grant of credit. Therefore, that provision does not apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.

               2.

               Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-32/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): I/S Fini H v Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive — Status of taxable person — Right to deduct — Winding up — Direct and immediate link — Transactions forming part of the economic activity as a whole)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-32/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): I/S Fini H v Skatteministeriet (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Status of taxable person - Right to deduct - Winding up - Direct and immediate link - Transactions forming part of the economic activity as a whole)
   (2005/C 115/03)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-32/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Højesteret (Denmark), made by decision of 22 January 2003, received at the Court on 28 January 2003, in the proceedings I/S Fini H v Skatteministeriet — the Court: (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 4(1) to (3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, is to be interpreted as meaning that a person who has ceased an economic activity but who, because the lease contains a non-termination clause, continues to pay the rent and charges on the premises used for that activity is to be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of that article and is entitled to deduct the VAT on the amounts thus paid, provided that there is a direct and immediate link between the payments made and the commercial activity and that the absence of any fraudulent or abusive intent has been established.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 05.04.2003.


title: Case T-499/15: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/17

         Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE)
   (Case T-499/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1565/2014-2 and R 1939/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-230/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze
   (Case C-230/06)
   (2006/C 190/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

      Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze
   Question(s) referred

               (1)

                           (a)

                           Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC (1), as amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit within which the administration of the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible?

                           (b)

                           For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision, are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applicable?

                           (c)

                           In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation?

               (2)

               In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is Article 11a(2) applicable?

               (3)

               Is the question of whether the customs authorities have competence to be determined according to the criteria laid down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of Regulation No 92/2913/EEC (3)?

      (1)  OJ L 107, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 253, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 302, p. 1.


title: Case T-45/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by DOW AgroSciences B.V. and DOW AgroSciences Ltd. against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 144/46                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by DOW Agro-                           newly created sub-category of priority substances, allegedly
Sciences B.V. and DOW AgroSciences Ltd. against the                       ‘under review’, which might be reclassified as ‘priority hazard-
European Parliament and the Council of the European                       ous substances’ in twelve months’ time, the contested measure
                              Union                                       would also create the legal conditions for the phasing-out and
                                                                          ultimate ban of the said substances.
                          (Case T-45/02)
                         (2002/C 144/96)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicants submit that the inclusion of chlorpyrifos and
                                                                          trifluralin in the list of priority substances is illegal for the
                                                                          following reasons:
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 February 2002
by DOW AgroSciences B.V. and DOW AgroSciences Ltd.,
represented by Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu
of McKenna & Cuneo LLP, Brussels (Belgium).                               —     the defendants improperly used the simplified (fast-track)
                                                                                procedure of Article 16(2), second paragraph, of the
                                                                                WFD, instead of basing the inclusion on the final PPPD
                                                                                risk assessment results, as required by Article 16(2)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     point (a). Furthermore, the defendants listed chlorpyrifos
                                                                                and trifluralin on the basis of a summary and expedited
—     declare the present application admissible and well-                      ‘hazard assessment’, rather than on the basis of aquatic
      founded;                                                                  toxicity and exposure data and a completed PPPD ‘risk
                                                                                assessment’, as required by Article 16(2) point (a) of the
                                                                                WFD.
—     order the partial annulment of Decision no. 2455/2001/
      EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority
      substances in the field of water policy and amending
      Directive 2000/60/EC, so as to remove chlorpyrifos and
      trifluralin from the measure;                                       —     By circumventing Article 16(2) point (a) of the WFD, the
                                                                                defendants disregarded the hierarchy among sources of
                                                                                Community law (principle of lex superior).
—     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
      these proceedings.
                                                                          —     By including chlorpyrifos and trifluralin in Annex X of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 the WFD, the contested measure also places the WFD in
                                                                                conflict with the more specific and therefore prevailing
                                                                                PPPD (principle of lex specialis).
The applicants in the prsent case seek the partial annulment of
Decision 2455/2001 (1), mentioned above, in as much as it
lists as ‘priority substances’ two of their plant protection
product active substances, chlorpyrifos and trifluralin, using a
procedure other than the one based on the risk assessment                 —     By ignoring available scientific and technical data in their
results of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the pla-                     expedited and summary hazard assessment, and by
cing on the market of plant protection products (2) (the Plant                  imposing a maximum environmental standard for the
Protection Products Directive — PPPD), as it should be                          two substances in question, the defendants violated
provided in Article 16(2) point (a) of Directive 2000/60/EC of                  Articles 174, 175 and 176 of the Treaty.
23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy (3) (the Water Framework
Directive — WFD), which the contested measure purports to
implement.
                                                                          —     By restricting and potentially banning chlorpyrifos and
                                                                                trifluralin through the contested measure and thereby
The contested measure would restrict the marketing and use                      placing them at a competitive disadvantage with compet-
of the applicants’ chlorpyrifos and trifluralin-based agricultural              ing substances, the defendants distorted competition, in
products. Moreover, by placing these two substances in a                        violation of Article 2 of the Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/47
The applicants also raise the point of a violation of the                 tion product active substance trifluralin in the list of priority
principles of consistency and uniform application of Com-                 substances which will be restricted in the EU insofar as it
munity law, of proportionality and of legal certainty and                 entails direct or indirect ‘discharges, emissions and losses’ in
legitimate expectations.                                                  the aquatic environment during normal agricultural use.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested measure
also departs from the letter and the spirit of the international          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
agreements to which it expressely refers (OSPAR, HELCOM                   relied upon in Case T-45/02 (DOW AgroSciences and Others -
and the Barcelona Convention).                                            v- Parliament and Council (2).
(1) OJ L 331, of 15.12.2001, p. 1.                                        (1) OJ [2001] L 331, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 170, of 25.6.1992, p. 40.                                        (2) See p. 46 of the present Official Journal.
(3) OJ L 327, of 22.12.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Finchimica,
S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici, S.p.A.
against the European Parliament and the Council of the                    Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Makhteshim-
                         European Union                                   Agan Holding B.V. against the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-46/02)
                                                                                (Case T-57/02)
                         (2002/C 144/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/98)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 February 2002
by Finchimica, S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici,
S.p.A., represented by Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio                An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo LLP, Brussels (Belgium).                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 February 2002
                                                                          by Makhteshim-Agan Holding B.V., represented by Mr Philippe
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Logelain, Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of
                                                                          McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
—     partially annul Decision no. 2455/2001/EC of the Euro-
      pean Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
      2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/
      EC (1), so as to remove trifluralin from the measure;
                                                                          —     order the partial annulment of Decision no. 2455/2001/
—     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in                     EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      these proceedings.                                                        20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority
                                                                                substances and priority hazardous substances in the field
                                                                                of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, so
                                                                                as to remove the applicant’s substances — Atrazine,
                                                                                Chlorpyrifos, Diuron, Endosulfan, Isoproturon (IPU),
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Simazine and Trifluralin — from the measure;
The applicants seek the partial annulment of Decision                     —     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
no. 2455/2001/EC which includes the applicants’ plant protec-                   these proceedings.


title: Case T-429/05: Action brought on  7 December 2005  — Artegodan v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/38

         Action brought on 7 December 2005 — Artegodan v Commission
   (Case T-429/05)
   (2006/C 48/74)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Artegodan GmbH (Lüchow, Germany) (represented by: U. Doepner, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 430 821,36 plus a lump-sum interest payment of 8 % for the period from the date of the judgment to that of full payment of the sum due;

               —

               Declare that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicant for all future damage which it will incur as a result of marketing expenses which are necessary to re-establish the market position which the pharmaceutical product Tenuate retard enjoyed before the defendant withdrew the authorisation for that product;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks compensation from the Commission under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC and a declaration that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicant for all future damage which it will incur as a result of marketing expenses.
   In relation to the background to the dispute, it should be pointed out that the applicant is the proprietor of the legal rights of the authorisation for the pharmaceutical preparation Tenuate retard, which contains amfepramone. On 9 March 2000, the defendant adopted, on the basis of Article 15a of Directive 75/319/EEC, (1) Decision C(2000) 453 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘amfepramone’. By decision of 11 April 2000, the competent German authorities implemented that latter Commission decision. By judgment of 26 November 2002 in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00 the Court of First Instance declared Commission Decision C(2000) 453 invalid. The appeal lodged by the Commission against that judgment was dismissed by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-39/03 P.
   In the reasons given in its action the applicant submits that, by reason of Decision C(2000) 453, the Commission acted unlawfully and thereby infringed various provisions serving to protect the applicant. The applicant claims that its basic right to carry on the business which it established (company and property rights) was infringed. In addition, it alleges infringement of Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC. (2) Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the basic principles of sound administration.
   The applicant submits that it suffered harm as a result of the decision in question and the implementation thereof. According to the applicant, the defendant should pay to it compensation in regards of the infringements identified above.

      (1)  Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products.

      (2)  Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products.


title: Case C-154/10 P: Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2011 — Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Medion AG

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2011 — Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Medion AG
   (Case C-154/10 P) (1)

   2011/C 173/18
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-143/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — Camurato Carfagno v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Reporting procedure — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — Camurato Carfagno v Commission
   (Case T-143/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Reporting procedure - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure - Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2007/C 82/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Antonietta Camurato Carfagno (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo, agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of 9 April 2003 drawing up the definitive version of the applicant's career development report in respect of the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 9 April 2003 drawing up the definitive version of the applicant's career development report in respect of the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Case T-289/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  13 October 2005  — Milella and Campanella v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/19

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Milella and Campanella v Commission
   (Case T-289/05)
   (2005/C 315/36)

      Language of the case: French

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


title: Case T-645/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Michael Heath against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10, Heath v ECB

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/14

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Michael Heath against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10, Heath v ECB
   (Case T-645/11 P)
   2012/C 65/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Michael Heath (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10;

               —

               consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:

                           —

                           annul the salary slip for January 2010 and the following months, in so far as these apply a pension increase of 0,6 %, in order to apply an increase of 2,1 % calculated in accordance with a lawful GSA [General Salary Adjustment];

                           —

                           to the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the requests for reconsideration and the complaints lodged by the appellant, decisions of 11 May 2010 and 9 September 2010 respectively;

                           —

                           order the ECB to pay the difference between the pension increase of 0,6 % granted unlawfully to the appellant as from January 2010 and that of 2,1 % to which he should have been entitled, namely a salary increase of 1,5 % per month as from January 2010. Those amounts should have interest applied as from their respective due dates until the date of actual payment, calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus 2 points;

               —

               order the ECB to pay EUR 5 000, to compensate for the appellant’s material damage resulting from the loss in his purchasing power;

               —

               order the ECB to pay EUR 5 000, assessed ex aequo et bono to compensate for his non-material damage;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law, infringement of the concept of measure having adverse effects and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

               2.

               Second and third pleas, alleging infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment, distortion of the file and failure to state reasons; infringement of Article 17(7) of Annex III to the Conditions of employment and the rules relating to the burden of proof in the review by the Civil Service Tribunal of the lawfulness of the opinion of the actuary and the lawfulness of the content of that opinion.

               3.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file, failure to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to examine the lawfulness of the intervention beyond November 2009 of the ECB’s actuary in place until 31 October 2009.

               4.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 48 of the Conditions of employment, infringement of the right of freedom of association and the fundamental right of collective negotiation as enshrined inter alia in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as the Civil Service Tribunal considered that ‘the applicant cannot complain that the ECB did not consult the Staff Committee prior to fixing the pension adjustment for 2010’.


title: Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Concept of undertaking — Economic activity — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Selective nature — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Concept of undertaking - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Selective nature - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 027/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Spain) (represented by: M. Lorenzo Outón and P. Egerique Mosquera, lawyers) (Case T-463/13); and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: F. García Martínez and B. Pérez Conde, lawyers) (Case T-464/13)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno and in Case T-463/13, V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Spain) and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, SA (Retegal) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/1

         2009/C 113/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

      OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

      OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

      OJ C 55, 7.3.2009

      OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

      OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-105/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2013 — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2013 — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-105/13)
   2013/C 147/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Question referred

   Can it be said to constitute a correct application of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with particular reference to Articles 34, 36 and 137, if a farmer with payment entitlements acquired on the basis of non-area-related production, allocated to the area in his possession, does not have a significant proportion of those entitlements paid out to him despite the fact that he declared the eligible area of the hectares which remained unchanged in his possession in good faith in accordance with the measuring method used by the Member State at the time of the activation of the payment entitlements under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, but subsequently rejected by the Commission, for the sole reason that the eligible area determined for purposes of the payment turns out to be smaller as the result of a changed measuring method?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).


title: Case T-89/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by GAEC SALAT against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/40

         Action brought on 21 February 2005 by GAEC SALAT against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-89/05)
   (2005/C 106/79)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by GAEC SALAT, with its registered office in Cussac (France), represented by F. Delpeuch, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Hold that the refusal of the European Commission to rule on the complaint lodged by GAEC SALAT on 15 October 2004 and registered on 26 October 2004 under No 0411325 was unlawful.

               2.

               draw the legal consequences following therefrom.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this case, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission concerning the amendment of the specification of the designation of origin ‘SALERS’ by Commission Regulation (EC) No 828/2003 of 14 May 2003 amending the specification of 16 names appearing in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. That designation of origin had already been registered as such by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1107/96.
   The applicant argues that such amendment of the specification constitutes an infringement of general legal principles, and in particular of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in relation to the designations of origin Salers cheese and Laguiole cheese.


title: Case C-606/15: Action brought on 17 November 2015 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/22

         Action brought on 17 November 2015 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-606/15)
   (2016/C 027/26)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that:

                           —

                           by entrusting to the investigating body the function of supervision of the railway system, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that the investigating body starts its investigation no later than one week after receipt of the report of an accident or incident, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that the final report of its investigation is communicated to the relevant parties referred to in Article 22(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that the investigating body addresses safety recommendations to the safety authority, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

                           —

                           by failing to lay down an obligation of the safety authority to take measures to ensure that safety recommendations are duly taken into consideration and acted upon, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

                           —

                           by failing to lay down an obligation of the safety authority to report back at least annually on measures that are taken or planned as a consequence of safety recommendations, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its application, the Commission puts forward the following arguments:
   The Czech Republic did not, by 30 June 2015, when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, communicate any amendment to its national legislation to ensure its compliance with Articles 19(1), 21(3), 23(2) and 25(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/49/EC. (1)

      (1)  Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 220, p. 16).