title: Case T-46/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/31

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission
   (Case T-46/11)
   2011/C 80/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Köln, Germany), Lufthansa Cargo AG (Kelsterbach, Germany) and Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, E. Arsenidou and A. Israel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1-4 of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 in case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight relating to the proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 11(2) and Article 11(1) of the EC-Swiss Agreement by relying on contacts between competitors which took place in Switzerland.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 1(2) of Regulation No 3975/87 (1) by relying on contacts between competitors which took place prior to 1 May 2004 in jurisdictions outside the EEA in order to establish:

                           —

                           an infringement of Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement involving European carriers (including the applicants) prior to 1 May 2004;

                           —

                           the origin of a single and continuous infringement prior to 1 May 2004 so as to be able to find an infringement immediately starting as of that date.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFUE, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the EC-Swiss Agreement by characterizing contacts between competitors which took place in jurisdictions outside the EEA as constituting part of the same single and continuous infringement with contacts between competitors that took place at headquarter level.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to the extent that it is premised on the notion that contacts between competitors taking place outside the EEA constitute infringements of Article 101 TFUE and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement on their own, i.e. irrespective of whether they constitute part of the same single and continuous infringement with contacts between competitors that took place at the headquarter level. Agreements or concerted practices with respect to EEA-inbound cargo shipments do not restrict competition within the EEA, nor do they affect trade between Member States. Moreover, government intervention in a number of relevant jurisdictions precludes the application of Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector, OJ L 374, p. 1


title: Case C-177/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 15 April 2011 — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 15 April 2011 — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis
   (Case C-177/11)
   2011/C 194/14
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

      Defendants: (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

      Question referred

   Does Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/ΕC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30), in providing that an environmental assessment is to be carried out for all plans and programmes ‘which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/ΕEC’, mean that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions for environmental assessment under Directive 92/43/ΕEC being met in respect of that plan and that, therefore, the provision in question of Directive 2001/42/ΕC also requires, like the above provisions of Directive 92/43/ΕEC, affirmation that the plan is likely to have a significant effect on a special area of conservation, whilst leaving the substantive assessment in that regard to the Member States? Or is Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to carry out an environmental assessment under that provision does not depend on the preconditions for carrying out an environmental assessment under Directive 92/43 being met, that is to say on the finding as to the likelihood of significant effects on a special area of conservation, and it is sufficient to find that a particular plan is connected in some way with a site envisaged in Directive 92/43, but not necessarily with a special area of conservation, in order for the obligation to carry out such an assessment to be activated?


title: Opinion 1/00: Request by the Commission of the European Communities for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty

text:
9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/5
1.    Declares that Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to
      companies in the Magefesa group and their successors is
                                                                           2.    The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to
      annulled in so far as it includes in the amount of aid to be
                                                                                pay the costs.
      recovered interest falling due after Indosa and Cunosa were
      declared insolvent on aid unlawfully received before that
      declaration;                                                         3.    The French Republic shall bear its own costs.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay, in addition to its own
      costs, three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the
      European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           Request by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Opinion 1/00)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/09)
                      of 13 September 2000
                                                                           By an application made by the Commission of the European
in Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communi-                      Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and Marie-José
           ties v the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)                       Jonczy, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 13 October 2000, the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities has been asked to deliver an Opinion
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to give proper notice             pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty.
                 — Inadmissibility of the action)
                          (2000/C 355/08)                                  The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court
                                                                           of Justice to deliver an Opinion on the compatibility with the
                                                                           provisions of the EC Treaty of the draft Agreement establishing
                                                                           a European Common Aviation Area to be concluded between
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of
                                                                           Estonia, the European Community, the Republic of Hungary,
                                                                           Iceland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Slovak Republic and the Republic of Slovenia, in particular on
                                                                           the question whether
In Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Vliet), supported by French Republic (Agent:                (i)   draft Article 23(2), which gives the option to Contracting
K. Rispal-Bellanger), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:                         Parties to decide whether their courts should refer
M.A. Fierstra) — application for a declaration that, by adopting                 questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice, and
on 16 December 1992 the Regulation for the prevention of
the introduction of foreign toxic dinoflagellata, the Kingdom              (ii) draft Article 23(3), which gives to the Joint Committee the
of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    final responsibility for the homogeneous interpretation of
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       the Agreement,
Articles 28 and 30 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,                   are satisfactory in this respect.
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
subsequently R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 Septem-
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case F-21/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — Iliopoulou v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the Conditions of Employment to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a temporary fixed-term contract — Refusal to grant a temporary contract for an indefinite term)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Iliopoulou v Europol
   (Case F-21/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the Conditions of Employment to Europol staff - Non-renewal of a temporary fixed-term contract - Refusal to grant a temporary contract for an indefinite term))
   (2015/C 034/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hariklia Iliopoulou (Wassenaar, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: J. Arnould and D. Neumann, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to not renew, for an indefinite duration, the applicant’s fixed-term contract and to order Europol to pay her the difference between the amount of remuneration to which she would have been entitled had she continued to carry out her duties and the unemployment benefits or any other allowance in lieu which she has received.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               The European Police Office shall bear its own costs and is ordered to cover half of the costs incurred by Ms Iliopoulou.

               3.

               Ms Iliopoulou shall bear half of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 16/6/2014, p. 42.


title: Case T-130/10: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2011 — Lux Management Holding SA v OHIM — Zeis Excelsa (KULTE) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Agreement for co-existence of the marks and withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/13

         Order of the General Court of 16 February 2011 — Lux Management Holding SA v OHIM — Zeis Excelsa (KULTE)
   (Case T-130/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Agreement for co-existence of the marks and withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 113/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lux Management Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Mas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zeis Excelsa SpA (Montegranaro, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2010 (Case R 712/2008-4) concerning proceedings between Zeis Excelsa SpA and Lux Management Holding SA for a declaration of invalidity

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Lux Management Holding SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-353/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 1 August 2008 — A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl and Others v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 1 August 2008 — A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl and Others v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-353/08)
   (2008/C 313/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl and Others

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 [of Directive 89/105/EC (1)] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               This Court asks: On a proper construction of the reference to‘
                     decreases in prices … being made, if any
                  ’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing ‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8).


title: Case T-248/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — FK v Commission

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/24

         Action brought on 6 November 2013 — FK v Commission
   (Case T-248/13)
   2014/C 9/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FK (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and J. Carey, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2007 of 10 January 2007 amending for the 74th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ L 6, p.6) insofar as it applies to the applicant, and Commission’s decision of 6 March 2013 to maintain the listing;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was not taken promptly or within a reasonable time period.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to meaningfully evaluate for itself whether the applicant satisfied the relevant criteria. In particular, the applicant states that the Commission: (a) failed to seek and/or obtain the underlying evidence for the allegations; (b) failed to ensure the statement of reasons was coterminous with the reason relied upon by the United Nations Sanctions Committee and failed to seek and/or obtain sufficient detail of the allegations such as to permit the applicant to answer such effectively; (c) failed to assess whether any of the allegations are based upon material tainted by torture; and (d) failed to seek and/or obtain any relevant exculpatory material.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to apply the correct burden and standard of proof.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons relied upon by the Commission is legally defective in that: (a) none of the allegations are supported by evidence thereby failing to demonstrate the allegations are well founded; (b) some allegations are insufficiently precise such as to enable to the applicant to effectively challenge the allegations; (c) some allegations are so historic and/or vague such as to fail to rationally connect to the relevant criteria; and (d) some allegations are inconsistent with exculpatory material.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a proportionality exercise, balancing the fundamental rights of the applicant with the actual current risk he is said to pose.


title: Case C-511/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2010 — Finanzamt Hildesheim v BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2010 — Finanzamt Hildesheim v BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-511/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Hildesheim

      Respondent: BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

      Question referred

   Is the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to be interpreted as authorising the Member States to prescribe primarily an apportionment criterion other than the transaction formula for apportioning the input tax on the construction of a mixed-use building?

      (1)  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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-162/02: Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 156/8                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany                                                                of Germany
                          (Case C-162/02)                                                           (Case C-163/02)
                          (2002/C 156/14)                                                           (2002/C 156/15)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European                   ties on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,           Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,           Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                    254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to            (1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Commission                 fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Commission
      Directive 1999/68/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 setting out                      Directive 1999/66/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 setting out
      additional provisions for lists of varieties of ornamental                requirements as to the label or other document made out
      plants as kept by suppliers under Council Directive 98/                   by the supplier pursuant to Council Directive 98/56/
      56/EC (2) in that it has not adopted all the laws, regulations            EC (2) in that has not adopted all the laws, regulations and
      and administrative provisions necessary in order to                       administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose
      transpose that directive into national law within the                     that directive into national law within the prescribed
      prescribed period;                                                        period;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on              The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
31 December 1999.                                                         31 December 1999.
(1) OJ 1999 L 172, p. 42.                                                 (1) OJ 1999 L 164, p. 76.
(2) OJ 1998 L 226, p. 16.                                                 (2) OJ 1998 L 226, p. 16.


|

Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-9/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0004 - 0004

		Judgment of the Courtof 10 December 2010in Case E-9/10EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)2011/C 148/04In Case E-9/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:The Court hereby:1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.2. Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.--------------------------------------------------


title: Case F-30/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 May 2010 — Nanopoulos v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Non-contractual liability — Leaks in the press — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Non-material damage — Decision to institute disciplinary proceedings — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 May 2010 — Nanopoulos v Commission
   (Case F-30/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official - Non-contractual liability - Leaks in the press - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Non-material damage - Decision to institute disciplinary proceedings - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 209/79
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Fotios Nanopoulos (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, D. Gouloussis and V. Vlassi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann initially, then by J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, and by E. Bourtzalas and I. Antypas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for an order that the Commission pay the applicant a sum by way of compensation for the damage suffered on account of the infringement of his fundamental rights undermining his honour and his reputation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Nanopoulos EUR 90 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008, p. 50.


title: Case F-36/12: Action brought on 15 March 2012 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Action brought on 15 March 2012 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-36/12)
   2012/C 184/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   (i) Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and (ii) compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered on account of the alleged administrative errors on the part of the defendant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the EIB to pay compensation for physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the unlawfulness of the administrative errors on the part of the EIB, together with default interest:

                           —

                           for infringement by the EIB of its duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials and its duty of protection, EUR 114 100;

                           —

                           for infringement of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations, EUR 10 000;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-182/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat by judgment of that Court of 25 January 2002 in the case of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association pour la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement des opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs and Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier d'eau against République française

text:
C 169/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
by judgment of that Court of 25 January 2002 in the case
of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association
pour la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement
des opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations                 —     annul Directive 2002/15/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
départementales de chasseurs and Association nationale                           ment and of the Council on the organisation of the
des chasseurs de gibier d’eau against République française                       working time of persons performing mobile road trans-
                                                                                port activities; and
                           (Case C-182/02)
                                                                           —     order the Council to pay the costs.
                           (2002/C 169/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
(Council of State) of 25 January 2002, received at the Court               Pleas in law and main arguments
Registry on 15 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association pour
la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement des
opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations départe-
mentales de chasseurs and Association nationale des chasseurs
de gibier d’eau against République française on the following              Breach of the right to professional and commercial freedom:
questions:
—      Does Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409 of
       2 April 1979 (1) permit a Member State to derogate from             —     Bringing self-employed carriers within the scope of the
       the opening and closing dates for hunting set in the light                directive at issue infringes the fundamental right to
       of the objectives specified in Article 7(4) thereof?                      exercise freely a professional or commercial occupation,
                                                                                one of the general principles of law respect for which is
                                                                                safeguarded by the Court of Justice.
—      If so, what are the criteria which make it possible to
       establish the limits of that derogation?
                                                                           —     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: bringing
( 1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 self-employed carriers within the scope of the directive
     vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1).                         amounts to unjustified discrimination against those car-
                                                                                riers as compared with carriers who are employed by
                                                                                other persons, since situations which are quite different
                                                                                are being treated in the same way without there being
                                                                                any objective justification for doing so; in addition, it
                                                                                involves a failure to observe the terms of reference of
                                                                                Article 74 EC, which requires the Council, when it takes
                                                                                measures in respect of transport rates and conditions, to
                                                                                take account of the economic circumstances of carriers.
Action brought on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
          against the Council of the European Union                              Furthermore, bringing self-employed drivers within the
                                                                                scope of the directive operates as a disincentive to
                                                                                the creation of transport undertakings and limits their
                           (Case C-184/02)                                       capacity to expand by making the legal framework
                                                                                unclear. Small operators will not know whether their
                           (2002/C 169/43)                                       actions are within the ambit of the law relating to self-
                                                                                employed persons or are within a labour relationship like
                                                                                that of any employee, or, perhaps worse, will not know
                                                                                whether they are subject to the limitations but not the
                                                                                rights imposed or granted to the latter. In short, bringing
An action against the Council of the European Union was                          self-employed carriers within the scope of the directive
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     discriminates against them as compared with carriers
ties on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain represented by                       who operate through persons working for others, making
Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogada del Estado, with an address                   it impossible for them to carry on business in a normal
for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy,                                way, reducing their competitiveness and leading to their
4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                                                  gradual exclusion from the market.


title: Case F-24/09: Action brought on 16 March 2009 — Wagner-Leclercq v Council

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/47

         Action brought on 16 March 2009 — Wagner-Leclercq v Council
   (Case F-24/09)
   2009/C 113/101
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Inge Wagner-Leclercq (Edegem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority published in the staff notice No 75/08 of 24 April 2008, listing the AST officials (career path I-11) proposed for promotion in the 2008 promotion year.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority published in the staff notice No 75/08 of 24 April 2008, listing the AST officials (career path I-11) proposed for promotion in the 2008 promotion year;

               —

               Annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-458/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

text:
C 83/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              5.4.2003
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten
(SENA) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), on the
interpretation of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/                                           (Fifth Chamber)
EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right
and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of                                         of 13 February 2003
intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken                 in Case C-458/00: Commission of the European Communi-
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                                  ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 February 2003, in which it has ruled:                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
                                                                            Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery
                                                                            or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B
                                                                            to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a
                                                                                fuel or other means to generate energy)
1.    The concept of equitable remuneration in Article 8(2) of
      Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
      rental right and lending right and on certain rights related                                     (2003/C 83/03)
      to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be
      interpreted uniformly in all the Member States and applied                                (Language of the case: French)
      by each Member State; it is for each Member State to
      determine, in its own territory, the most appropriate criteria
      for assuring, within the limits imposed by Community law              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      and Directive 92/100 in particular, adherence to that                                    in the European Court Reports)
      Community concept.
                                                                            In Case C-458/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v Grand Duchy of
2.    Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 does not preclude a model            Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz), supported by Republic of Austria
      for calculating what constitutes equitable remuneration for           (Agent: C. Pesendorfer): Application for a declaration that by
      performing artists and phonogram producers that operates by           raising unjustified objections to certain shipments of waste to
      reference to variable and fixed factors, such as the number of        another Member State to be used principally as a fuel, in
      hours of phonograms broadcast, the viewing and listening              breach of Article 7(2) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)
      densities achieved by the radio and television broadcasters           No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control
      represented by the broadcast organisation, the tariffs fixed by       of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European
      agreement in the field of performance rights and broadcast            Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), and of Article 1(f) in
      rights in respect of musical works protected by copyright, the        conjunction with point R1 of Annex II B to Council Directive
      tariffs set by the public broadcast organisations in the              75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
      Member States bordering on the Member State concerned,                as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May
      and the amounts paid by commercial stations, provided that            1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      that model is such as to enable a proper balance to be                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 7 of
      achieved between the interests of performing artists and              that Regulation and under Article 1(f) in conjunction with
      producers in obtaining remuneration for the broadcast of a            point R1 of Annex II B to that Directive, the Court (Fifth
      particular phonogram, and the interests of third parties in           Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
      being able to broadcast the phonogram on terms that are               er, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
      reasonable, and that it does not contravene any principle of          and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
      Community law.                                                        H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                            a judgment on 13 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                       the costs;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.


title: Case T-166/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Ivanov v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Local administrative and technical staff — Rejection of application — Jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Annulment action time-barred — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Act of the European Ombudsman — Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Ivanov v Commission
   (Case T-166/08) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Local administrative and technical staff - Rejection of application - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Annulment action time-barred - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Act of the European Ombudsman - Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   2009/C 282/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vladimir Ivanov (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   The applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the Commission's decision refusing to recruit him as a

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Vladimir Ivanov is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-9/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Tax legislation — Income tax — Income received in a Member State — Non-resident worker — Tax in the State of employment — Conditions)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback
   (Case C-9/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Tax legislation - Income tax - Income received in a Member State - Non-resident worker - Tax in the State of employment - Conditions))
   (2015/C 279/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: D.G. Kieback

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 39(2) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, for the purposes of charging income tax on a non-resident worker who has pursued his occupational activity in that Member State during part of the year, from refusing to grant that worker a tax advantage which takes account of his personal and family circumstances, on the basis that, although he received, in that Member State, all or almost all his income from that period, that income does not form the major part of his taxable income for the entire year in question. The fact that that worker left to pursue his occupational activity in a non-member State and not in another EU Member State does not affect that interpretation.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-364/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 84/360/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Industrial plant — Electricity power station)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-364/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 84/360/EEC - Atmospheric pollution - Industrial plant - Electricity power station)
   (2005/C 217/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-364/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 August 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not defining the policies or strategies for progressively adapting in line with the best available technology the steam turbine units and the gas turbine units of the power station operated by the Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou (public electricity undertaking) situated in Linoperamata on the Island of Crete, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.


title: Case C-5/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2014 — Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2014 — Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück
   (Case C-5/14)
   2014/C 85/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the second sentence, in conjunction with the first sentence, [b], of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) justify a court of a Member State in referring to the Court of Justice of the European Union questions on the interpretation of EU law which have been put to the national court in connection with the legality of a national law, even if the national court not only has doubts concerning the legality of the national law under EU law, but is also certain that the national law is inconsistent with the national Constitution and therefore, in a parallel case, the national court has already sought a decision from the Constitutional Court which, under national law, alone has jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of laws, but the Constitutional Court has not yet given a decision?
               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Do Directives 2008/118/EC (1) and 2003/96/EC, (2) which were adopted for the harmonization of excise duty and for energy products and electricity in the Union, preclude the introduction of a national duty which is levied on nuclear fuels used for the commercial production of electricity? Does this depend on whether the national duty can be expected to be passed on to consumers by means of the electricity price and, if appropriate, what is meant by ‘passed on’?

               3.

               Can an undertaking resist a duty which a Member State imposes in order to raise revenue on the use of nuclear fuels for the commercial production of electricity, by objecting that the levying of the duty constitutes aid contrary to EU law under article 107 TFEU?
               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative:
               Does the German Kernbrennstoffsteuergesetz (Law on excise duty on nuclear fuel, under which a tax for raising revenue is imposed only on undertakings which produce electricity commercially by using nuclear fuels, constitute a State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU? What circumstances are to be taken into account in considering whether other undertakings which are not taxed in the same way are in a similar factual and legal situation?

               4.

               Is the levying of the German nuclear fuel duty inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM)?

      (1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

      (2)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).


title: Case T-706/16 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/30

      Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission
      (Case T-706/16 P)
      (2016/C 454/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: HB (Schweich, Germany) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought by the appellant

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission;
                  giving judgment itself,

                  —

                  annul the decision not to promote the appellant under the 2014 promotion exercise;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of non-material harm;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds, alleging several errors of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST).
      First, the appellant alleges that the CST erred in law in taking the view that the appointing authority had carried out an effective comparative assessment of the merit points, that is to say, on an objective and equal basis, whereas it confined itself to disregarding the appellant’s merit points for 2013, because the 2013 staff report did not contain an assessment, without attempting to obtain comparable sources of information or information.
      Second, the appellant considers that the CST erred in law in finding that the absence of an assessment in the 2013 staff report is attributable to the appellant and that the appointing authority was prevented from assessing the merit points for that year by the fact that there was no challenge by the appellant within the period prescribed in the Staff Regulations.
      Third, the CST, according to the appellant, erred in law in finding that she had not adduced evidence to show that there was discrimination based on gender, whereas her staff report lacks any substantial assessment exclusively because of her long-term absences justified by her periods of maternity leave and pregnancy-related illness.


title: Case C-255/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 233/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.9.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 29 May 2002 by the European Parlia-
                                                                            ment against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
                                                                            Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun
                           (First Chamber)                                                         Alliance Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-199/02)
                           of 14 June 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 233/19)
in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke
GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (1)                        An action against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
                                                                            Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun Alliance
                                                                            Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a                  European Communities on 29 May 2002 by the European
preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and                      Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim and O. Caisou-
annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies —                    Rousseau, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                 Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                         Luxembourg.
                                                                            The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 233/18)
                                                                            1.    order the defendants to reimburse the European Parlia-
                                                                                ment the costs of repairing the storm damage caused to
                    (Language of the case: German)                                its Alucobond panels on 26 December 1999, amounting
                                                                                to EUR 1 194 378,43 together with interest on account
                                                                                of late payment;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          2.    order Chubb to reimburse the European Parliament
                                                                                expert’s fees amounting to EUR 2 200,64 together with
                                                                                interest on account of late payment;
                                                                            3.    order the defendants to pay the costs.
In Case C-248/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch)
(Austria), for a preliminary ruling in proceedings before that              Pleas in law and main arguments
Landesgericht brought by Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH
and Others and Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others on the
validity and interpretation of the First Council Directive 68/              The action is brought on the basis of an arbitration clause.
151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards                      The applicant takes the view that the defendant insurance
which, for the protection of the interests of members and                   companies are not entitled to rely upon an exclusion clause
others, are required by Member States of companies within the               set out under the heading ‘storms and hailstorms’ in the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,                supplementary general conditions of the contract of insurance.
with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
and of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual
accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11)
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
made an order on 14 June 2002, in which it ruled:                           court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds
                                                                            Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide
                                                                            Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Cus-
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no                                    toms and Excise
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Feldkirch
in its order of 22 June 2001.                                                                       (Case C-255/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/20)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 233/13
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 27 June 2002, which            Industriehygiene-Service GmbH, established in Kirchheimbo-
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a               landen (Germany), represented by Koen Van Maldegem and
preliminary ruling in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent          Claudio Mereu, lawyers.
Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments
Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
following questions:
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    (a)  In the relevant circumstances, do transactions:
                                                                        —      declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
           (i)   effected by each participator with the intention
                 solely of obtaining a tax advantage and                —      annul the Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April
                                                                               2002 in case T-339/00;
           (ii)  which have no independent business purpose
                                                                        —      declare that the Appellant has standing to bring proceed-
                                                                               ings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC for the
           qualify for VAT purposes as supplies made by or to                  annulment of Regulation 1896/2000/EC ( 2);
           the participators in the course of their economic
           activities?
                                                                        —      remand the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on
                                                                               the merits;
      (b) In the relevant circumstances, what factors should
           be considered in determining the identity of the
                                                                        —      order the European Commission to bear all costs and
           recipients of the supplies made by the arm’s-length
           builders?                                                           expenses of both proceedings.
2.    Does the doctrine of abuse of rights as developed by the
      Court operate to disallow the Appellants their claims for
      recovery of or relief for input tax arising from the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementation of the relevant transactions?
                                                                        The Appellant submits that the contested order should be
                                                                        annulled bacause it was decided on the basis of an overly
                                                                        restrictive interpretation of Article 230 EC which, the Appel-
                                                                        lant maintains, no longer applies as a result of the new test for
                                                                        standing introduced by the Court of First Instance in its recent
                                                                        judgment in case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cia SA v. European
                                                                        Commission. In the Appellant’s view, his action is clearly
                                                                        admissible under this new test inasmuch as the contested
Appeal brought on 12 July 2002 by Bactria Industriehy-                  Regulation restricts his data protection and property rights in
giene-Service GmbH against the order made on 29 April                   a manner that is both definite and immediate and the Appellant
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                        has no recourse to another judicial body to protect his rights.
Instance of the European Communities in case T-339/
00 (1) between Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH
      and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        Furthermore, the Appellant submits that, even if the new test
                                                                        is not applied, the legal assessment made by the Court of First
                                                                        Instance in concluding that the Appellant was not individually
                        (Case C-258/02 P)                               concerned by the contested Regulation is contradictory, insuf-
                                                                        ficiently motivated, based on an erroneous interpretation and
                                                                        application of the relevant legal framework and inconsistent
                         (2002/C 233/21)                                with the predominant case-law on individual concern.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 4, 6.1.2001, p. 9.
                                                                        (2 ) of the Commission of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
An appeal against the order made on 29 April 2002 by the                     programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products
                                                                             (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 6).
European Communities in case T-339/00 between Bactria
Industriehygiene-Service GmbH and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 July 2002 by Bactria


title: Case C-516/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli
   (Case C-516/12)
   2013/C 26/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

      Defendants: Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

      Questions referred

   Does the right to compensation arise, for the purposes of Article 4 of Regulation No 1191/69, (1) only where, following the submission of an appropriate application, the competent authorities have not terminated the public service obligation which imposes an economic disadvantage on the transport undertaking, or is that provision applicable only in respect of service obligations which are to be terminated and cannot be maintained under the regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1).


title: Case T-192/99: Action brought on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett, Thomas Hackett, and Mateo Turró Calvet against the European Investment Bank

text:
C 314/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.10.1999
In support of the forms of order sought, the applicants allege:         — in the alternative, to annul the said decision purportedly
                                                                            taken by the Management Committee;
— infringement of Article 253 (formerly Article 190) and
    Article 255 (formerly Article 191a) of the EC Treaty, as
    amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                 — further or in the alternative, to annul the decision taken by
                                                                            the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank
                                                                            on 23 February 1999;
— breach of the code of conduct of 6 December 1993,
    adopted by Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Eura-
    tom, on public access to Commission documents; and                  — further to annul the payslips issued to the applicants in
                                                                            respect of their remuneration for the month of January
— breach of the principles of logical coherence, rationality                1999 and for successive months;
    and proper balancing of interests, which must direct the
    exercise of any discretion conferred upon the Commission
    in such matters.                                                    — to order the payment to the applicants by the Bank, with
                                                                            interest, of the difference between the amounts which the
                                                                            applicants have received by way of remuneration since
The above code of conduct refers, when stating general                      1 January 1999, and the amounts which they would have
principles, to ‘Commission and Council documents’, and                      received if the ‘special conversion rate’ had been applied;
defines ‘document’ as ‘any written text ... which ... is held by
the Commission or the Council’. However, a decision such as
the contested decision does not meet the requirement of                 — order the payment by the Bank of the applicants’ costs of
transparency laid down by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Lastly,                  these proceedings.
according to the applicants, it does not appear that any of the
documents relating to the procedure under Article 226 of the
Treaty is covered by the exemption based or public law. In any
event, the exemption does not operate on the basis of
indiscriminate blanket coverage, but requires a specific state-         Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of reasons in respect of each individual document.
                                                                        The dispute which is the subject of these proceedings relates
                                                                        to action taken by the European Investment Bank in connec-
                                                                        tion with the introduction, as from 1 January 1999, of the
                                                                        euro as a single currency in 11 out of the 15 Member States of
                                                                        the European Union. Like the other institutions and bodies of
                                                                        the European Union, the Bank has chosen to replace the
                                                                        Belgian and Luxembourg franc (BEF/LUF) with the euro as the
Action brought on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett,                   currency in which, from January 1999, the remuneration and
Thomas Hackett, and Mateo Turró Calvet against the                     pensions of its staff are to be expressed and calculated. The
                 European Investment Bank                               impact of the change of the purchasing power of the officials
                                                                        of those other institutions and bodies is intended to be entirely
                                                                        neutral. That is in contrast to the position in which, as
                        (Case T-192/99)
                                                                        from January 1999, members of the staff of the Bank find
                                                                        themselves. Some of them have suffered a significant loss of
                        (1999/C 314/27)                                 purchasing power, as compared with their position in Decem-
                                                                        ber 1998, owing to the discontinuation of the mechanism
                                                                        known as the ‘special conversion rate’, which has been applied
                  (Language of the case: English)                       by the Bank since 1982 in respect of the portion of an
                                                                        individual’s remuneration payable in a currency other than
                                                                        BEF/LUF.
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett, Thomas Hackett                   There appears to be no formal text of a decision of the
and Mateo Turró Calvet, represented by Professor A.A. Dash-            Management Committee abolishing this mechanism. The only
wood and Wendy Outhwaite, with an address for service in                trace of such a decision can be found in some documents
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 rue                 that refer to the adoption of a decision by the so-called
Marie Adelaïde.                                                         ‘non-opposition procedure’, which was concluded on 11 June
                                                                        1998. At its meeting of 23 February 1999, the Board of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Directors purported to confirm the Management Committee’s
                                                                        Decision to abolish the mechanism. The payslips of the
— declare that the internal note to the Management Com-                 applicants for the month of January 1999 show that the
    mittee of the European Investment Bank dated 5 June                 discontinuance of the mechanism has taken effect.
    1998 and the minutes of the decision of the Management
    Committee thereon dated 10 and 11 June 1998 do not,
    taken together, constitute a valid decision of the Manage-          The applicants consider, however, that in fact the Management
    ment Committee to abolish, as from the introduction of              Committee has not adopted a decision to abolish the mechan-
    the single currency on 1 January 1999, the so-called                ism in the context of the non-opposition procedure of June
    ‘special conversion rate’;                                          1998. In the absence of such a decision, the mechanism
 ---pagebreak--- 30.10.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 314/13
would not automatically have become inapplicable on the                 Action brought on 30 August 1999 by Cristiano Sebasti-
introduction of the euro. Nor could the decision of the Board           ani against the Commission of the European Communities
of Directors of 23 February 1999 have given the abolition of
the mechanism retroactive force by ‘confirming’ a non-existent                                  (Case T-194/99)
decision of the Management Committee. It would follow
that the mechanism remained applicable in principle to the
remuneration of all the staff at the Bank. On that hypothesis,                                  (1999/C 314/28)
the applicants submit that it would be appropriate for the
Court to annul their January payslips in so far as these contain
no element relating to the application of the mechanism, and                              (Language of the case: French)
to order the Bank to reinstate the mechanism and to continue
to apply it.                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 30 August 1999 by Cristiano
If, however, the Court takes the view that such a decision was          Sebastiani, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
actually taken, the applicants state that it is unlawful and            Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the
should be annulled on the following grounds:                            Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
1. The decision was adopted without proper consultation of              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     the official Staff Representatives as required by Article 24
     of the Staff Regulations.                                          — annul the Commission’s decision not to promote him
                                                                            to Grade A 6 in the context of the 1998 promotions
                                                                            operation;
2. The decision is based on an error of law such to alter its
     essential character and hence:
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     — the decision taken was ultra vires the Management
         Committee;                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant challenges the appointing authority’s refusal to
     — the Management Committee failed to give due con-                 promote him during the 1998 promotions operation.
         sideration to all the matters relevant to a decision of
         the kind in question; and
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
     — the procedure followed by the Management Committee               — infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
         was unlawful.                                                      Regulations,
                                                                        — infringement of the rights of defence,
3. The decision violates a right enjoyed by members of the
     staff under their contracts of employment with the Bank,           — breach of the principles of equality of treatment, good
     such rights having either                                              administration and entitlement to reasonable career pros-
                                                                            pects, and
     — been incorporated by mutual consent into individual              — breach of the obligation to state reasons.
         contracts of employment; or
                                                                        The applicant states that his personal file did not, on the date
     — arisen through the operation of the principle of                 of comparative assessment of the merits of the candidates for
         acquired contractual rights which is known, in some            promotion to Grade A 6 in the context of the promotions
         form, to the employment law of most of the Member              operation in question, contain any report on the work he had
         States and which applies to the contracts of employ-           done as an administrator.
         ment of Bank staff by virtue of Article 44 of the Staff
         Regulations.                                                   Furthermore, the note from the Assistant Director-General of
                                                                        DG XII which stated that the applicant had been replaced
                                                                        as official correspondent for the Advisory Committee on
4. The decision violates the legitimate expectations of the             Procurement and Contracts for DG XII with effect from
     staff which were aroused by a course of conduct of the             1 September 1996, was not drawn up as soon as the relevant
     Bank’s Administration amounting to a clear assurance that          decision was adopted, nor was a copy of the note sent to the
     the mechanism would continue to be applicable after                applicant, nor was it included in his personal file. The members
     1 January 1999.                                                    of the Promotions Committee would not, therefore, have been
                                                                        aware of an essential piece of information concerning the
                                                                        applicant’s administrative status.


title: Case C-422/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH
   (Case C-422/16)
   (2016/C 350/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Trier

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V.

      Defendant: TofuTown.com GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 78(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (‘Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013’) be interpreted as meaning that the definitions, designations and sales descriptions defined in Annex VII need
                     not
                   satisfy the relevant requirements of this Annex if the relevant definitions, designations and sales descriptions are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive additions (such as ‘tofubutter’ for a pure plant-based product)?

               2.

               Is Annex VII, Part III, point 1, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘milk’ is exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom, or may the expression ‘milk’ — where necessary with the addition of explanatory terms such as ‘soya-milk’ — also be used in the marketing of plant-based (vegan) products?

               3.

               Is Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in conjunction with Article 78, to be interpreted as meaning that the descriptions listed in detail in point 2(a), such as, in particular, ‘whey’, ‘cream’, ‘butter’, ‘buttermilk’, ‘cheese’, ‘yoghurt’ or the term ‘cream’ etc., are reserved exclusively for milk products, or can pure plant-based/vegan products, which are produced without (animal) milk, also fall within the scope of Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013?

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-378/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Risks related to exposure to carcinogens and mutagens — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 17 November 2005
   in Case C-378/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Risks related to exposure to carcinogens and mutagens - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 36/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-378/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and V. Kreuschitz) v Republic of Austria (Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 2 September 2004 — the Court, composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur) acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully transpose Council Directive 1999/38/EC of 29 April 1999 amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagens, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004


title: Case T-194/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — Bavarian Lager v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Decision refusing access — Protection of physical persons in relation to processing of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Concept of private life)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — Bavarian Lager v Commission
   (Case T-194/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Decision refusing access - Protection of physical persons in relation to processing of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Concept of private life)
   (2007/C 315/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd (Clitheroe, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially J. Pearson and C. Bright, and subsequently by J. Webber and M. Readings, solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), (represented by: H. Hijmans, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 March 2004 refusing an application by the applicant for full access to the minutes of a meeting held in connection with proceedings for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations and for a declaration that the Commission wrongly terminated the proceedings brought against the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC)
   Operative part
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 18 March 2004, rejecting an application for access to the full minutes of the meeting of 11 October 1996, containing all the names;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: Case T-11/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Participation in the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Attenuating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Equal treatment — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission
   (Case T-11/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Participation in the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Attenuating circumstances - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Equal treatment - Power of unlimited jurisdiction)
   2011/C 340/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Romana Tabacchi Srl, formerly Romana Tabacchi SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G.C. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier and V. Di Bucci, and finally by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Romana Tabacchi Srl had participated in the infringement beyond February 1999;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Romana Tabacchi at EUR 1 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi in Case T-11/06 R.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-192/10: Order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-192/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/72
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.