title: Action brought on 12 September 1996 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-299/96)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 336/ 17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                Action brought on 12 September 1996 by the French
Genova by an order of that court of 5 July 1996 in the case           Republic against the Commission of the European
pending before it between Società Corsica Ferries France                                          Communities
and 1 . Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova 2 .                                    ( Case C-299/96 )
Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3 . Ministero
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/33 )
               dei Trasporti e della Navigazione
                        ( Case C-266/96
                          ( 96/C 336/32 )                             An action against the Commission was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      12 September 1996 by the French Republic, represented by
                                                                      Catherine de Salins and Gautier Mignot, acting as Agents,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District             Embassy, 9 Boulevard du Prince Henri .
Court ), Genoa, of 5 July 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 August 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case pending before it between Societa Corsica Ferries            The applicant claims that the Court should :
France and 1 . Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di
Genova 2 . Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3 .             — annul the registration of ' feta ' as a protected designation
Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione on the                        of origin in Part A of the Annex to Commission
following questions :                                                     Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 ( 1 ) of 12 June 1996 ,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
1 . Must Article 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
     precluding legislation and/or administrative practice in a
     Member State which debars shipping companies                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     established in other Member States from berthing their
     vessels on entry to docks in the first-mentioned State, or       Infringement of Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
     unmooring those vessels on departure, unless they use            No 2081 /92 ( 2 ) of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
     the services provided by a local undertaking by virtue of        geographical indications and designations of origin for
     its exclusive concession in respect of berthing and              agricultural products and foodstuffs :
     unmooring facilities, which entails paying to that
     undertaking dues which may not be commensurate with              — the name ' feta ' does not fulfil the criteria laid down by
     the actual cost of the services provided ?                           Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 for the
                                                                          registration of a name as a protected designation of
                                                                          origin : the term ' feta ' does not refer in any way to the
2 . Does Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of                         name of a region or a specific place in Greece, nor to the
     22 December 1 986 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 59 of            name of that country ( Article 2 ( 2 )). Nor is it a
     the Treaty preclude the imposition in a Member State of              traditional name designating an agricultural product or
     a requirement whereby berthing services are obligatory               a foodstuff originating in a region or a specific place
     and shipping companies established in another Member                 ( Article 2 ( 3 )). Feta has in fact never been exclusively
     State are charged tariffs which are fixed not by law but             produced in a region or specific place within the Hellenic
     merely by administrative discretion in respect of the                Republic, but was traditionally known by the name
     arrival or departure of their vessels in or from the                 'telemea' in Romania and northern Greece and by the
     first-mentioned Member State ?
                                                                          name 'touloumootyri ' in southern Greece before being
                                                                          designated by the generic term ' feta', originating from
                                                                          the Italian . It was not until 1987 that the Hellenic
3 . Do Articles 3 , 5 , 90 ( 1 ), 85 and 86 of the Treaty, in
                                                                          Republic laid down various characteristics with regard
     conjunction, preclude legislation and/or administrative
                                                                          to the method of manufacturing feta and its
     practice in a Member State which confers on an
                                                                          composition, as well as its origin. Ultimately, the
     undertaking established in that State an exclusive right
                                                                          designation of origin ' feta ' was recognized by a 1994
     to provide berthing services such as to enable those
                                                                          decree, the zones authorized to produce feta being
     services to be made compulsory, dues to be charged
                                                                          restricted to most of the territory of the Hellenic
     which may not be commensurate with the actual cost of
                                                                          Republic and almost all of its mainland territory . The
     the services provided, tariffs to be applied which have
                                                                          applicant further states, in the alternative, that feta does
     been determined by agreement and/or administrative                   not essentially owe its quality or characteristics to the
     discretion, and tariff conditions to be imposed which
                                                                          geographical location of the regions in which it is
     vary from one port to another, even for like services ?
                                                                          produced in Greece,
(') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                      — the name ' feta ' may in fact be seen as a generic name
                                                                          designating a type of cheese . Whilst the name ' feta '
                                                                          undeniably has specifically Greek connotations for
                                                                          consumers in that country, it does not evoke any
                                                                          specifically Greek origin . As regards the situation in the
                                                                          other Member States, feta has for several decades been
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
       produced in various Member States and is the subject of            Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Federal
       significant intra-Community trade; the production                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
       volume has for some years been comparable to, if not                                  European Communities
       higher than , that in Greece; feta consumption primarily                                  ( Case C-301 /96 )
       involves feta produced outside Greece . Lastly, feta is
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/35 )
       subject to long-standing rules in several Member States,
       dating from before the introduction of the Greek rules,            An action against the Commission of the European
       and the name 'feta ' features in various Community acts            Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       adopted since 1975 , without being reserved to a product           European Communities on 16 September 1996 by the
       of Greek origin .                                                  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
                                                                          Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of the Economy
 ( ! ) Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 July 1996 on the registration   D-53107, and Thomas Oppermann , of the University of
       of geographical indications and designations of origin under the   Tubingen, acting as Agents .
       procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No 2081 /92 ( OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p. 1 ).                The applicant claims that the Court should :
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          — annul Article 2 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                                                                              26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
                                                                              Volkswagen group for its Mosel and Chemnitz factories;
                                                                              furthermore, annul Article 1 of that decision to the
                                                                              extent that it limits the amounts declared to be
                                                                              compatible with the common market to DM 418,7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig                        million for direct investment grants and DM 120,4
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                   million for investment premiums,
22 April 1996 in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur Land               — annul Article 3 ( 2 ) of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                  und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg                              26 June 1996 in so far as it provides that the combined
                           ( Case C-300/96 )                                  effective aid intensity, expressed as gross grant
                             ( 96/C 336/34 )                                  equivalent, must not exceed 22,3 % for Mosel II or
                                                                              20,8 % for Chemnitz II, and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig                               proceedings .
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht ( Schleswig-Holstein
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administrative Court ) of 22 April 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 16 September 1996 , for a                        Infringement of the Treaty and breach of essential
preliminary ruling in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur                procedural requirements:
Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg on the following
questions :
                                                                         — the provision in Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                              concerning the division of Germany is an exception by
                                                                              operation of law from the basic prohibition of aid
( a ) Is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 ) of                        contained in Article 92 ( 1 ), whereas the exceptions
        Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 of                           under Article 92 ( 3 ) are optional . In cases of aid falling
        23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for                       under Article 92 ( 2 ), the procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )
        applying the integrated administration and control                    is confined to examining whether the factual criteria are
        system for certain Community aid schemes ( ] ) [as it                 met — namely, in the particular case of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ),
        stood before the entry into force of Commission
                                                                              whether there are disadvantages caused by division and
        Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 amending                  whether aid is required to compensate for them . The
        Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92], which excludes a                      applicant alleges breach of the obligation to state
        farmer from any area-linked payment whatever where                    reasons laid down in Article 1 90 of the EC Treaty, in that
        the area actually determined for a particular crop is                 the Commission deliberately failed to deal with the
        found to be less than that declared in his aid application
                                                                              provision concerning division, and breach of the
        if the difference is more than 20% , even where the
                                                                              principle that action must not be unreasonable or
        discrepancy is not intentional or the result of serious               disproportionate, in that the Commission adopted the
        negligence but merely of minor negligence, compatible                 contested decision on the basis of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) in
        with the principle of proportionality in Community                    accordance with the discretionary criteria of the
        law ?
                                                                              Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle
                                                                              industry,
( b ) If not, how is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 )
        of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 [as it stood before the         — the contested decision is contrary to Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
        entry into force of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ] to be              the Treaty, relating to the division of Germany. General
        interpreted in such cases ?                                           principles of interpretation apply to that provision.
                                                                              Consequently, alongside the principle that factors giving
(!) OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
                                                                              rise to an exemption are to be construed narrowly,
                                                                              which the Commission has stated in formal terms, the
                                                                              principle that rules of Community law are to be
                                                                              interpreted meaningfully must in particular be observed;


title: Case T-45/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission (Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Errors of assessment — Force majeure)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission
   (Case T-45/15) (1)

   ((Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment - Recovery order - Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of assessment - Force majeure))
   (2016/C 156/51)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015 relating to recovery order No 3241405101 issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 540 721,10.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hydrex NV to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.


title: Case T-432/15: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/62

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)
   (Case T-432/15) (1)

   (2017/C 144/91)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-401/02: Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (received by fax on 11 November 2002)

text:
25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/13
Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Com-                                 under the directive but solely as a preparatory document.
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                        Third, the reference to the glossary of the Green Paper is
Republic of Germany (received by fax on 11 November                            out-dated and must be considered within its historical
                               2002)                                           context, particularly in light of subsequent developments.
                                                                               In particular, the extent of carrier pre-selection depends
                                                                               on the degree of liberalisation achieved within the market
                          (Case C-401/02)                                      concerned. In the Resolution of 17 July 1997 on the
                                                                               Green Paper on a numbering policy for telecommuni-
                                                                               cations services in Europe, ( 2) the European Parliament
                           (2003/C 19/23)                                      called on the Commission to make proposals in the
                                                                               amendment to the existing Directive 97/33/EC which
                                                                               would be directed at the introduction of carrier pre-
                                                                               selection for fixed local access providers with significant
                                                                               market power in order to facilitate fair competition. As
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                          the Council subsequently found in its Resolution of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   22 September 1997 on the further development of a
ties on 12 November 2002 (received by fax on 11 November                       numbering policy for telecommunications services in the
2002) by the Commission of the European Communities,                           European Community, ( 3) the gradual introduction of
represented by C. Schmidt, acting as Agent, with an address                    carrier pre-selection should ‘encourage competition in all
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     sectors of the market’, at least for carriers with significant
                                                                               market power providing fixed local public telephone
                                                                               services. Following liberalisation of the market for local
                                                                               calls (that is to say, in principle from 1 January 1998),
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                               the availability of carrier pre-selection at local level should
the Court should:
                                                                               encourage competition within this market sector.
1.    Rule that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to
      ensure application of Directive 98/61/EC of the European                 The Commission accordingly confirmed the applicability
      Parliament and of the Council (1) of 24 September 1998                   of Article 12(7) to pre-selection at local level through the
      amending Directive 97/33/EC with regard to operator                      express reference to, inter alia, carrier pre-selection in the
      number portability and carrier pre-selection, or in any                  case of local calls as an obligation under Article 12(7) of
      event by failing to notify the Commission of those                       the directive in the second and third recitals in its decision
      measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                  of 22 December 1999 on the United Kingdom’s request
      fulfil its obligations under Article 12(7) of Directive 97/              for deferment of the obligation to introduce carrier pre-
      33/EC;                                                                   selection pursuant to Article 20(2) of Directive 97/33/EC,
                                                                               as amended by Directive 98/61/EC.
2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         —     Deferment of obligations may be granted only in accord-
                                                                               ance with the procedure under Article 20(2) of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                directive. Germany is not one of the countries to which
                                                                               an additional transitional period was granted for the
The Commission alleges that — notwithstanding the fact that                    transposition of Article 12(7) of the directive. The
the period within which actual carrier pre-selection had to be                 Commission also takes the view that, since 1 January
introduced expired on 1 January 2000 — no carrier pre-                         2000 at the latest, there could be no further grounds for
selection for local calls is at present being offered in Germany               any legitimate expectation that the economic conditions
by the carrier notified as the ‘organisation with significant                  governing investments in local networks would be main-
market power’. The Commission considers that the grounds                       tained.
given in justification of this are invalid:
—     The question whether the possibility for carrier pre-
      selection is also to be provided with regard to local calls
      must be resolved on the basis of the directive’s wording.          (1 ) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37.
      The recitals in the preamble may be adduced as an aid to           (2 ) OJ C 286, 22.09.1997, p. 232.
      interpretation if that wording allows of several interpret-        (3 ) OJ C 303, 04.10.1997, p. 1.
      ations. The wording of Article 12(7), however, is
      unequivocal with regard to the applicability of carrier
      pre-selection in the case of local calls. Second, the fifth
      recital in the preamble, to which the German Government
      refers, mentions the Green Paper on a numbering policy
      for telecommunications services in Europe not as a
      reference document setting out the obligations arising


title: Case T-445/07: Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Behring & Söhne v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/30

         Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Behring & Söhne v Commission
   (Case T-445/07)
   (2008/C 37/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Behring & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: P. Niggemann and K. Gaßner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 (COMP/E-1/39.168 — Haberdashery: fasteners);

               —

               in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision to a symbolic penalty or to an amount that is in any event appropriate;

               —

               that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — Haberdashery: fasteners. In the contested decision, a fine was imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC. In the Commission's view, the applicant participated in the coordination of price increases, together with the exchange of confidential information as to prices and the implementation of price increases on the markets for ‘other fasteners’ and application machines.
   The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of its claim.
   It submits, first, that the contested decision infringes its right to a fair hearing, since it had no opportunity to comment on a series of meetings held in relation to the so-called ‘Basle group’ and the ‘Wuppertal group’, on which the Commission based its allegations relating to the coordination of price increases and the exchange of confidential information as to prices and the implementation of price increases.
   Secondly, it claims that the alleged infringements of the law relating to cartels have ceased, since the applicant ended its participation in the ‘Basle group’ and the ‘Wuppertal group’ as early as the beginning of 1997.
   The applicant also maintains that there was no infringement of Article 81 EC, since the Commission has failed to adduce the requisite proof of the applicant's participation in any arrangements.
   Lastly, the applicant claims that the calculation of the fine is factually incorrect. In that regard, it alleges in particular that the findings of the defendant, both as to the length of the purported infringement by the applicant, and as to the seriousness of the infringement, are incorrect and that the amount of the fine is disproportionate.


title: Case C-613/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/16

         Action brought on 30 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-613/11)
   2012/C 32/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision [2008/92/EC] of 10 July 2007 concerning an Italian State aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping sector (notified on 11 July 2007 and published in OJ 2008 L 29, p. 24), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for implementing Decision 2008/92 expired on 11 September 2007.
   To date, the Italian Republic has not yet undertaken the full recovery of the aid declared unlawful by the decision in question or informed the Commission that recovery has taken place. Moreover, the legal and practical difficulties relied on by Italy as justification for the delay in implementing that decision are not such as to make recovery absolutely impossible in accordance with the case-law of the Court nor has Italy at any stage in fact pleaded that such recovery was absolutely impossible.
   In addition, the Commission complains that, in breach of the obligation under the decision in question to communicate information and of the duty of cooperation in good faith, Italy was late in informing it of the progress of the national procedures for implementing the decision.


title: Case T-65/05: Action brought on 7 February 2005 by Thomas Seldis against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/31

         Action brought on 7 February 2005 by Thomas Seldis against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-65/05)
   (2005/C 106/66)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 2005 by Thomas Seldis, residing in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin M., Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decision of 5 April 2004 to appoint the applicant a probationary official in so far as it does not grade him on recruitment at grade A6 and was adopted without considering the possibility of allowing him additional seniority in grade in accordance with Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of the internal directives of 11 October 1984;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case objects to his grading as a probationary official in the JRC Directiorate General at grade A7 at the time of his appointment.
   In that regard, he alleges infringement both of Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations and of the internal directives of 11 October 1984 on the fixing of the grade and step of staff, and more specifically that of officials in the scientific and technical services who occupy posts paid from appropriations in the research budget.
   Having regard to his claims, the applicant maintains inter alia that, at the time of his recruitment as an official, he already had proof of more than eight years of professional experience qualifying for additional seniority.


title: Case C-20/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Forlì — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Karl Josef Wilhelm Schwibbert (Directive 98/34/EC — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations — Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations — National law requiring the distinctive sign of the national body responsible for collecting copyright royalties to be affixed to compact discs placed on the market — Definition of technical regulation )

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Forlì — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Karl Josef Wilhelm Schwibbert
   (Case C-20/05) (1)

   (Directive 98/34/EC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations - National law requiring the distinctive sign of the national body responsible for collecting copyright royalties to be affixed to compact discs placed on the market - Definition of ‘technical regulation’)
   (2007/C 315/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Forlì
   Party in the main criminal proceedings
   Karl Josef Wilhelm Schwibbert
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Forlì — Interpretation of Article 3 EC and Articles 23 EC to 27 EC and of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) — Compatibility of a national law imposing the obligation to affix to all recordings of cinematographic or audiovisual work put on sale the sign of the national body responsible for collecting royalties
   Operative part of the judgment
   Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings — in so far as such provisions introduced, after the implementation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, the obligation to affix the distinctive sign ‘SIAE’ to compact discs of works of figurative art for the purposes of marketing them in the Member State concerned — constitute a technical regulation which, if not notified to the Commission, cannot be invoked against an individual.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2007.


title: Case T-111/03: Action brought on 27 March 2003 by T against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 124/28               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.5.2003
Action brought on 20 March 2003 by Regione Marche                          undertakings in the region, there is nothing in the relevant
    against Commission of the European Communities                         provisions to indicate the existence of an obligation incumbent
                                                                           on the Marche Regional authority requiring Marche Capital to
                                                                           expend all the resources granted to it before the IPM Marche
                         (Case T-107/03)                                   expired.
                        (2003/C 124/48)                                    The applicant also maintains that the contested decision
                                                                           infringes the principles of legal certainty and sound adminis-
                                                                           tration. By approving the agreement concluded between
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Società Marche Capital and the Marche Region, the Com-
                                                                           mission gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the
                                                                           Marche Region that it could make use of the whole of the
                                                                           contribution granted to it, provided the methods of financing
                                                                           were in conformity with the agreement itself, which was in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           fact the case. According to the applicant, the Commission also
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           infringed the principle of sound administration in that, first, it
European Communities on 20 March 2003 by Regione
                                                                           adopted the decision definitively bringing to an end the IPM
Marche, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo and Massimo
                                                                           Marche nearly 8 years after it had expired and, secondly, it was
Merola, lawyers.
                                                                           largely inactive throughout that period.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Finally, the aplicant takes the view that the Commission
                                                                           infringed Article 253 EC.
—     annul the decision of the Commission adopted by letter
      of 18 December 2002 and every other measure connected
      with it and consequent upon it;                                      (1 ) Bollettino Ufficiale (official journal) for the Regione Marche
                                                                                (supplement No 10 of 28 July 1988).
                                                                           (2 ) OJ 1985 L 197, p. 1.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
      Regione Marche for the purpose of the proceedings,
      including legal fees.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 27 March 2003 by T against Com-
The present application seeks the annulment of the decision                             mission of the European Communities
of 18 December 2002 by which the European Commission
announced that it was definitively concluding the Integrated
Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region ( 1),                                             (Case T-111/03)
approved by way of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2088/85 (2)
of 23 July 1985 concerning the integrated Mediterranean
                                                                                (2003/C 124/49)
programmes on the basis of information provided by the
applicant by memorandum of 6 September 2002.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
According to the contested decision, investments in the
beneficiary undertakings did not adhere to the prescribed
timetable so far as concerns phase 3 of the programme in
question.                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 27 March 2003 by T, residing in
                                                                           Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant argues that there is no legal basis for the
contested measure inasmuch as the Commission bases its own
decision on the failure of the Marche Region to observe
obligations which were not imposed by the applicable legis-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
lation. Irrespective of the fact that the Commission accused
the applicant of not using fully, by the end of the IPM, the               —      annul the decision of the appointing authority of
contribution granted to Società Marche Capital, a body set up                     14 August 2002 not to promote the applicant in the
to promote the development of small and medium-sized                              2002 promotions procedure to Grade A 4,
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 124/29
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                        Removal from the register of Case T-77/00 ( 1)
      pay damages to make good the material and non-material
      damage suffered as a result of the decision of 14 August                                    (2003/C 124/50)
      2002 and of the conduct preceding and following
      that decision, such damages having been assessed at                                   (Language of the case: English)
      EUR 25 000;
                                                                         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-77/00:
                                                                         Esat Telecommunications v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.
The applicant is challenging the refusal of the appointing
authority to promote him to Grade A 4 in 2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-208/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/51)
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     breach of the duty to provide reasons;
                                                                         By order of 13 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      inasmuch as his staff report was better than that of               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      another person in his department who was promoted;                 T-208/02: Lene Beier v Europol.
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of               (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
      officials and of the principle of sound administration;
—     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
      assessment, abuse of process and/or misuse of powers, as                   Removal from the register of Case T-245/02 (1)
      well as breach of the principle of equal treatment and
      infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. In                                     (2003/C 124/52)
      that regard, the applicant is of the view that, contrary to
      the principle of equal treatment, he was ranked behind                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
      an official whose staff report had not been as good as his
      over several years. The explanation provided by his
      immediate superior amounts to misuse of powers and/or              By order of 12 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
      abuse o process, as well as an infringement of Article 26          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      of the Staff Regulations.                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-245/02: Antonia de Jong v Europol.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-360/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/39/EC — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Risks related to chemical agents at work — Establishment of occupational exposure limit values — Failure to transpose throughout the territory of the Member State concerned within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-360/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/39/EC - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Risks related to chemical agents at work - Establishment of occupational exposure limit values - Failure to transpose throughout the territory of the Member State concerned within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/26)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-360/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 August 2003 – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Commission Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work, 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 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-6/06: Action brought on  13 January 2006  — Mopro-Nord GmbH v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/29

         Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Mopro-Nord GmbH v Commission
   (Case T-6/06)
   (2006/C 74/54)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mopro-Nord GmbH (Altentreptow, Germany) (represented by: L. Harings and C.H. Schmidt)

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

               —

               annul paragraphs 25 to 27 of the defendant's decision on State aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005 C 262, p. 5) in so far as they are based on assertions made by the German authorities that expenditure incurred before the Commission approved this individually notifiable aid, relating to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is not eligible for aid;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the defendant's decision on State aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005 C 262, p. 5) in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2005) 3310 final of 6 September 2005 relating to State aid No N 363/2005 for the construction of a whey refining plant. The beneficiary of that aid is Mopro-Nord GmbH in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In the contested decision, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany that the aid notified by it is EC-compatible. The applicant contests the decision in particular in so far as it is based on assertions made by the German authorities that expenditure incurred before the Commission approved this individually notifiable aid, relating to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is not eligible for aid.
   In support of its claim the applicant submits that the defendant's determination of the facts is erroneous. It also complains of a breach of the obligation to give reasons under Article 253 EC and infringement of the principles of legal security and certainty. Moreover, by the contested decision, the Commission has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and the principle of sound administration. The contested decision is also in breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with the Community framework for State aid in the agricultural sector (2). Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission's decision infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the prohibition of discrimination.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2, and OJ 2000 C 232, p. 19.


title: Case C-365/09 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2009 by Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2009 in Case T-225/08 Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); the other party to the proceedings being: Schwarzbräu GmbH

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/49

         Appeal brought on 14 September 2009 by Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2009 in Case T-225/08 Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); the other party to the proceedings being: Schwarzbräu GmbH
   (Case C-365/09 P)
   2009/C 267/82
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (represented by: P. Wadenbach, Rechtsanwalt)
   Other parties to the proceedings:

               —

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

               —

               Schwarzbräu GmbH

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 8 July 2009 in Case T-225/08;

               2.

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2008 (Case R 877/2004-4);

               3.

               Completely delete the Community trade mark No 505552 ‘ALASKA’ owing to the existence of absolute grounds for refusal;

               4.

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance which dismissed the appellant’s action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 April 2008. By that decision the Board of Appeal confirmed the rejection by the Cancellation Division of the appellant’s application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community figurative mark ‘ALASKA’. The appellant’s application was directed against all the goods covered by the registration in Class 32 (mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages).
   The dispute between the parties centres on the question whether an absolute ground for refusal in the form of the requirement to maintain the availability of an indication of geographic origin exists.
   By its appeal the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, in particular with regard to the principles developed by the case-law.
   According to the wording of the abovementioned provision of Regulation No 40/94, for registration of a Community trade mark to be excluded it suffices if the mark consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods covered by the application. It follows from that provision that geographic designations which may be used by undertakings, must also be kept available for those undertakings as indications of geographic origin with regard to the group of goods concerned. The application of the abovementioned provision of Regulation No 40/94 does not require that there be a real, current or serious requirement to keep the sign available.
   Had the Court of First Instance interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 and the principles developed by the case-law correctly for the purposes of the present case, it would have had to find that Alaska was the largest source of drinking water in the United States, that the relevant public associated Alaska with a natural surplus of pure water in its most diverse forms, that an economically significant amount of mineral water was produced in Alaska and that it was already distributed in the Community, meaning that further marketing was a serious possibility. It was accordingly clear that the designation ‘ALASKA’ could in future be used by competitors as an indication of geographic origin.
   The Court of First Instance instead interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 and the principles of the case-law incorrectly by imposing, while carrying out a test of viability, that is to say whether the distribution of mineral water from Alaska in the Community was economically feasible or not (having regard to competition on the market, transport costs), additional requirements which went beyond those principles. Those broader requirements were excessive in the light of the objectives of Article 7(1)(c), its wording and in particular in the light of the principles developed in the case-law, and led to an excessively broad interpretation which was not in conformity with the purpose of the Community law provision.


title: Case F-133/15: Action brought on 12 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/45

         Action brought on 12 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-133/15)
   (2015/C 414/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose on the applicant, following an investigation concerning a conflict of interest, a penalty of permanent downgrading by two grades, and compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 10 December 2014 to impose on the applicant, as a disciplinary measure, a penalty of permanent downgrading, in the same function group, from grade AD 11 to grade AD 9;

               —

               award the applicant a sum of EUR 1 00  000 by way of compensation in relation to the long duration of the procedure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-77/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/15

         Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-77/07)
   (2007/C 69/35)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and W. Wils)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2001/84 into domestic law expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 272, 13.10.2001, p. 32.


title: Case T-9/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/24

         Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council
   (Case T-9/17)
   (2017/C 070/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RI (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Council’s appointing authority of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that:

                           —

                           Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease;

                           —

                           it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that the Invalidity Committee did not provide an explanation to the requisite legal standard as regards the reasons that led it to depart from the earlier medical reports clearly showing the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, described as ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome complicated by algoneurodystrophy’.


title: Case F-72/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/20

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-72/11)
   2011/C 290/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decisions setting the promotion thresholds for the 2010 and 2011 exercises as regards grades AD13 and AD14 and, secondly, annulment of the list of officials promoted to grades AD13 and AD14 for the 2010 exercise and annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to promote a larger number of other officials to grades AD12 or AD13.

      Form of order sought by the applicants

               —

               Annul the decisions setting the promotion thresholds for the 2010 and 2011 exercises at grades AD13 and AD14 which were published in Administrative Notices Nos 3-2010, 65-2010 and 76-2010;

               —

               annul the list of officials promoted to grades AD13 and AD14 for the 2010 exercise which was published in Administrative Notices No 65-2010 in so far as that list was drawn up on the basis of unlawful promotion thresholds, and annul the Commission’s implied decision not to promote a larger number of other officials to grades AD12 or AD13;

               —

               annul, to the appropriate extent, the decisions dismissing the applicants’ complaint;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber)  12 January 2006  in Case C-107/05 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/87/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   12 January 2006
   in Case C-107/05 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/87/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 60/21)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-107/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and P. Aalto) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis and J. Klucka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declared that, by failing, with regard to the province of Åland, to adopt the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Finnish Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Ordered the Finnish Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-143/03: Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — National legislation subjecting alkaline batteries to a marking scheme)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-143/03: Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - National legislation subjecting alkaline batteries to a marking scheme)
   (2004/C 300/38)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-143/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi) v the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by P. Gentili) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 March 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Declares that, by subjecting manganese alkaline batteries containing less than 0.0005 % mercury by weight to a marking scheme which requires, in particular, an indication as to the presence of heavy metals, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case C-552/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Bilbao — Spain) — Grupo Hospitalario Quirón SA v Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco, Instituto de Religiosas Siervas de Jesús de la Caridad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 23(2) — Management of public health services — Provision of health services under the remit of public hospitals in private establishments — Requirement that the services be provided in a particular municipality)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Bilbao — Spain) — Grupo Hospitalario Quirón SA v Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco, Instituto de Religiosas Siervas de Jesús de la Caridad
   (Case C-552/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 23(2) - Management of public health services - Provision of health services under the remit of public hospitals in private establishments - Requirement that the services be provided in a particular municipality))
   (2015/C 414/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Bilbao

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grupo Hospitalario Quirón SA

      Defendants: Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco, Instituto de Religiosas Siervas de Jesús de la Caridad

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts precludes a requirement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, expressed as a technical specification in public procurement notices relating to the provision of health services, whereby the medical services that are the subject of the calls for tenders must be provided by private hospital establishments situated exclusively within a given municipality, which is not necessarily that in which the patients concerned by those services reside, where that requirement involves the automatic exclusion of tenderers who cannot provide those services in such an establishment situated within that municipality but who satisfy all the other conditions of those calls for tenders.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Removal from the register of C-272/96

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 199/21
          Removal from the register of C-202/96 (')                             Removal from the register of C-273/96 ( l )
                           ( 97/C 199/55 )                                                         ( 97/C 199/58 )
By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Case C-202/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                from the register of Case C-273/96 ( Reference for a
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris ): Societe des Labora             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
toires Valda v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Regularisation              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
du Marche du Sucre ( FIRS ).                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Bartolomeo Terranova.
H OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-271/96 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/56 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-295/96 ( ' )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                               97/C 199/59 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-271/96 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 17 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-295/96 : Commission
against Antonio Nardi .
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(■) OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .                                       (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-272/96 H
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-296/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 199/57 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/60 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-272/96 ( Reference for a                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-296/96 ( Reference for a
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Alfredo Cipriani .                                             Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto Division )):
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola .
 (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case F-118/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities — Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities — Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure — No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/99

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council
   (Case F-118/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities - Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities - Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure - No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 048/114)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Wolfgang Bärwinkel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Council decisions on the classification of officials in grades AD 9 to AD 14 occupying posts identified as holding special responsibilities in the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ before 31 December 2015 and not placing the applicant among the officials so classified.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 48.


title: Case C-580/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2008 by Devrajan Srinivasan against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 03 November 2008 in Case T-196/08: Srinivasan/Médiateur

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/24

         Appeal brought on 24 December 2008 by Devrajan Srinivasan against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 03 November 2008 in Case T-196/08: Srinivasan/Médiateur
   (Case C-580/08 P)
   2009/C 267/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Devrajan Srinivasan (represented by: J. Morton, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Médiateur européen
   By order of 25 June 2009 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-296/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État): Glaxosmithkline SA v État Belge (Directive 89/105/EEC — Medicinal products for human use — Application for entry on a positive list — Nature of the time-limit for responding — Mandatory nature — Consequences of exceeding the time-limit where a decision refusing entry is annulled)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-296/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État): Glaxosmithkline SA v État Belge (1)

   (Directive 89/105/EEC - Medicinal products for human use - Application for entry on a positive list - Nature of the time-limit for responding - Mandatory nature - Consequences of exceeding the time-limit where a decision refusing entry is annulled)
   (2005/C 57/16)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-296/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'État (Belgium) by decision of 27 June 2003, received at the Court on 8 July 2003, in the proceedings Glaxosmithkline SA v État Belge – the Court: (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which the national authorities are not entitled to exceed.

               2.

               It is for the Member States to determine whether the fact that the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105 is exceeded precludes the competent authorities from formally adopting a new decision when the previous decision has been annulled in court proceedings, although such a possibility can be exercised only within a reasonable time which may not in any event exceed the time-limit laid down in that article.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Case T-346/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2008 — Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark EASYCOVER — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2008 — Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)
   (Case T-346/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark EASYCOVER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Duro Sweden AB (Gävle, Sweden) (represented by: R. Bird, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and D. Botis, Agents)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005-4) relating to an application for registration of the word mark EASYCOVER as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005 4) in so far as concerns goods in the category ‘monuments, not of metal’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Duro Sweden AB to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of OHIM's costs. OHIM is ordered to pay one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-39/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV
   (Case C-39/13)
   2013/C 123/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Noord/kantoor Groningen

      Respondent: SCA Group Holding BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does denying the respondent the opportunity of having the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and the assets of the (sub-)sub-subsidiaries established in the Netherlands — that is to say, Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding — constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC?
               In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of the (sub-)sub-subsidiaries Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of companies established in the Netherlands which are (sub-)subsidiaries of an intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands which has not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with its parent company established in the Netherlands, and which therefore, as sub-subsidiaries, similarly to Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding, have no access to the fiscal unity regime with — exclusively — its grandparent company, or to (ii) the situation of sub-subsidiaries established in the Netherlands which, together with their parent company/intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands, have elected to form a fiscal unity with their (grand-)parent company established in the Netherlands and whose activities and assets therefore, unlike those of Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding, are consolidated for tax purposes?

               2.

               In answering the first sentence of Question 1, does it still make a difference … whether the domestic companies concerned are held by one single intermediate holding company (at a higher level of the group structure) in the other Member State or whether, as in the case of Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding, they are held by two (or more) intermediate holding companies — albeit situated in that other Member State — (at two or more higher levels of the group structure)?

               3.

               If and to the extent that the first sentence of Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, can such a restriction then be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, more particularly by the need to maintain tax consistency, including the prevention of unilateral and bilateral double use of losses …?
               Does it still make a difference in that context that it has been established in the specific case that there is no double use of losses …?

               4.

               If and to the extent that Question 3 must be answered in the affirmative, should the restriction be considered to be proportionate …?


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 October 2001 in Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main): Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate Christoffel (C-81/99) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities and Marike Leitensdorfer (C-82/99) v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Non-contractual liability — Milk producers — Non-marketing undertaking — Exclusion from milk quota scheme — Compensation — Substitution — Flat-rate compensation by contract — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Relevant jurisdiction — Applicable law)

text:
C 331/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.11.2001
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —              the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate Christoffel (C-81/99)
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric              and Council of the European Union and Commission of the
(Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen,               European Communities represented by: Bundesanstalt für
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                 Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, and between Marike Leit-
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               ensdorfer (C-82/99) and Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:                                     Ernährung — on the interpretation of the second paragraph
                                                                           of Article 215 and Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now the
1.    A person who does not initially have any interest in the             second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC) and
      immovable property and who enters into an agreement for lease        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993
      of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the        providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers
      grant of a lease of the property in return for a sum of money        of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying
      paid by the landlord does not make a supply of services              on their trade (OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6) — the Court, composed
      falling within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive         of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
      (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the              N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
      laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —               Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathe-
      common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.       let, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,
                                                                           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
2.    A person who does not initially have any interest in the             on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
      immovable property and who enters into an option agreement
      such as the one before the national court in relation to leases of
      that immovable property in return for a sum of money paid by
      the landlord, on terms that the money will remain in a special
      account as security for its obligations under the option             1.    The provisions of the second paragraph of Article 215 and
      agreement, and who subsequently exercises the options under                Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of
      the option agreement and accepts the grant of leases of the                Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC) read in conjunction must
      immovable property in return for the release of the money in its           be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice does not
      special account, at no time makes a supply of services falling             have jurisdiction to rule in disputes arising from a contract for
      within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC.                   compensation concluded in the name and on behalf of the
                                                                                Council and the Commission by the competent national
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                        authority, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                                compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products
                                                                                temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 9 October 2001
                                                                           2.    In the absence of any indication in Regulation No 2187/93,
in Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 (reference for a                              the contracts for compensation concluded pursuant to that
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Frank-                           Regulation are governed by the rules of national law, provided
furt am Main): Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate                              that their application does not prejudice the scope and effective-
Christoffel (C-81/99) v Council of the European Union                            ness of Community law.
and Commission of the European Communities and
Marike Leitensdorfer (C-82/99) v Bundesanstalt für Land-
                  wirtschaft und Ernährung (1)
                                                                           3.    Community law does not preclude the application of the
(Non-contractual liability — Milk producers — Non-market-                        principle of legitimate expectations provided for by the national
ing undertaking — Exclusion from milk quota scheme —                             legal order of the Member State concerned for the purposes of
Compensation — Substitution — Flat-rate compensation by                          assessing the scope of contracts concluded by national authorities
contract — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Relevant                                in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission,
                 jurisdiction — Applicable law)                                  provided that the Community interest is also taken into account.
                          (2001/C 331/03)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 121, 1.5.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99: reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from


title: Case T-251/13: Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Gemeente Nijmegen v Commission

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/27

         Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Gemeente Nijmegen v Commission
   (Case T-251/13)
   2013/C 189/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Gemeente Nijmegen (Nijmegen, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. van der Heul, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 1152 final of 6 March 2013 in so far as it concerns the alleged aid awarded by the Municipality of Nijmegen to NEC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Municipality (Gemeente) of Nijmegen built the multi-purpose sports complex ‘De Eendracht’ next to the Goffert football stadium in Goffert Park in 2003. Both the Goffert Stadium and De Eendracht were leased to the Nijmegen professional football association, NEC. The lease agreement in respect of De Eendracht includes an agreed right for NEC to acquire De Eendracht.
   In mid-2009 the Municipality drew up a plan to develop a large part of Goffert Park as a top-class sport and innovation park (Topsport- en Innovatiepark; TIP). It was expressly intended that, inter alia, the existing (but to be extended) Goffert Stadium and De Eendracht were to be incorporated into the TIP.
   In 2008 and 2009 NEC informed the Municipality that it wished to exercise its right to buy De Eendracht from the Municipality. That proposal threatened the Municipality’s plans regarding the TIP. NEC appeared to be prepared to surrender its right to acquire De Eendracht in return for payment. On the basis of an independent valuation the purchase price was set at EUR 2.22 million. The Municipality paid that sum to NEC.
   The Commission decided, by decision of 6 March 2013, to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, and the Municipality’s purchase of the right to acquire De Eendracht was deemed to constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Municipality contests that decision.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging breach of the principles of equality and of legal certainty owing to the fact that the Municipality’s use of the Commission’s Communication on sales of land (1) in the valuation of the right to acquire De Eendracht was disregarded without any reasons being given.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers and erred in law, made a manifest error of assessment and/or infringed its obligation to state reasons by finding that the purchase of the right to acquire De Eendracht was State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, or at any rate that there were sufficient grounds for initiating the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging unreasonable delay in initiating the formal procedure and breach of the principle of legal certainty and procedural requirements, and/or misapplication of the law.

      (1)  Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (OJ 1997 C 209, p. 3).