title: Case T-392/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Iran Transfo v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/9

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Iran Transfo v Council
   (Case T-392/11)
   2011/C 290/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Transfo (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, requiring the defendant to submit all documents in connection with the contested decision, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
               The applicant's rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) have been infringed. Article 16 of the Charter guarantees the freedom to conduct a business in the European Union and Article 17 guarantees the right to use and, in particular, to dispose of lawfully acquired possessions in the European Union. Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter guarantee the applicant the right to equal treatment and the right not to be discriminated against.
               The applicant is excluded from participation in trade in the European Union by the contested decision. The economic survival of the applicant is thereby threatened. The applicant is dependent on deliveries from the economic territory of the European Union.
               There is no public interest in the restriction of the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business, its property rights, its right to equal treatment and its right not to be discriminated against. In particular, there is no evidence to justify the defendant’s decision and the related interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights. The applicant is, in particular, not engaged in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifestly incorrect appraisal of the facts on which the contested decision was based
               The applicant is not engaged in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
               The defendant did not respect the principle of proportionality in its decision. The applicant cannot however exclude the possibility that an energy supplier to whom it delivers sold transformers to the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, in breach of contract and without its knowledge. The Iranian Atomic Energy Agency could also have easily obtained corresponding transformers on the world market or on the European Union market. The medium voltage transformers at issue are produced and marketed, worldwide, also in Iran, by all important producers. In addition there is extensive worldwide trade in second-hand transformers, which have features corresponding to those transformers produced by the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence
               The statement of reasons set out in Section 16 of the Annex to the contested decision is incomprehensible to the applicant and verifiable reasons were not communicated to the applicant by the defendant, with the result that the applicant’s rights of defence and right to a genuine redress have been infringed.


title: Case C-218/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/19

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-218/06)
   (2006/C 165/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive expired on 11 August 2004.

      (1)   OJ 2003 L 35, p.1.


title: Case T-329/07: Action brought on 3 September 2007 — UPS Europe and UPS Deutschland v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/39

         Action brought on 3 September 2007 — UPS Europe and UPS Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-329/07)
   (2007/C 247/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined a position with respect to the applicants' complaint lodged with the Commission on 11 May 2004;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants claim that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position after having been invited to do so under Article 232 EC on the applicants' complaint lodged with the Commission on 11 May 2004 regarding unlawful state aid allegedly granted to Deutsche Post by Germany in form of among others state guarantees, contributions to Deutsche Post's pension fund and exemption from various statutory obligations.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission is required to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint received in particular in the light of the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction to assess the compatibility of aid measures with the common market.
   The applicants further submit that Article 232 EC must be interpreted as entitling individuals or undertakings to bring an action for failure to act against an institution for failure to adopt measures which would have been of direct and individual concern to them, even though they are not the potential addressees of these measures.
   Finally, the applicants contend that the measures which the Commission failed to adopt can be considered to be of direct and individual concern to the applicants as competing undertakings of Deutsche Post.


title: Case C-178/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bregenz by order of that court of 29 December 1998 in the land registration case of Doris Salzmann née Greif

text:
17.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 204/29
     interpreted as permitting a Member State to enact national           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     legislation under which:                                             Administratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First
                                                                          Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 11 May
     (a) a worker does not begin to accrue rights to the paid             1999 in the case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des
         annual leave specified in Article 7 (or to derive any                          Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire
         benefits consequent thereon) until he has completed
         a qualifying period of employment with the same                                            (Case C-177/99)
         employer; but
                                                                                (1999/C 204/55)
     (b) once that qualifying period has been completed, his
         employment during the qualifying period is taken into
         account for the purposes of computing his leave                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         entitlement?                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admi-
                                                                          nistratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First Chamber),
                                                                          France, of 11 May 1999, which was received at the Court
2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what are the factors             Registry on 17 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
     that the national court should take into account in order            case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
     to determine whether a particular qualifying period of               Maine-et-Loire, on the following question:
     employment with the same employer is lawful and pro-
     portionate? In particular, is it legitimate for a Member State
     to take into account the cost for employers of conferring            ‘Are the provisions of the Decision of 28 July 1989 of the
     the rights on those workers who are employed for less                Council of the European Communities (1) authorising the
     than the qualifying period?                                          French Government to derogate from the limit imposed by the
                                                                          Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 and
                                                                          to extend to third parties exclusions of expenditure on
                                                                          accommodation, restaurants, hospitality and entertainment
                                                                          from the right to deduct tax compatible, first, with the
                                                                          objectives of the Sixth Directive and in particular Article 27
                                                                          thereof which stases that “the Council, acting unanimously on
                                                                          a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member
                                                                          State to introduce special measures for derogation from the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil de                      provisions of this directive, in order to simplify the procedure
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber),                     for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax
by judgment of that tribunal of 14 April 1999 in the case                 evasion or avoidance”, and, second, with the principle of
of Didier Mayeur aginst APIM Association Promotion de                     proportionality between the tax objective pursued and the
                     l’Information Messine                                means employed?’
                         (Case C-175/99)                                  (1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the
                                                                              French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second
                                                                              subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC
                         (1999/C 204/54)                                      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                              to turnover taxes (OJ L 239, p. 21).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil de
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber) of
14 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 11 May
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Didier Mayeur
against APIM Association Promotion de l’Information Messine.
The Labour Tribunal, Metz, Miscellaneous Activities Chamber,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksge-
requests the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following           richt Bregenz by order of that court of 29 December 1998
question:                                                                  in the land registration case of Doris Salzmann née Greif
‘Is Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approxi-                                        (Case C-178/99)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of                                      (1999/C 204/56)
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (1) applicable
where the activity of a legal person governed by private law is           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
transferred to a legal person governed by public law? Must                European Communities by an order of the Bezirksgericht
application of that directive be excluded where the activity is           Bregenz (District Court, Bregenz), Austria, of 29 December
transferred to a public service of an administrative nature?’             1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 May
                                                                          1999, for a preliminary ruling in the land registration case of
                                                                          Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 61 of 5.3.1977, p. 26.
                                                                          1. May nationals of a Member State of the European Union
                                                                               rely on free movement of capital even if a capital trans-
                                                                               action has no transnational element?
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
2. Is it compatible with free movement of capital for consent            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
     of the land transfer authority, which has constitutive effect,      Gerichtshof by order of 27 April 1999 in the case of Hugo
     to be required for the acquisition of building land?                  Boss Aktiengesellschaft v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O.
3. What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of                                       (Case C-183/99)
     Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on new types of
     situations requiring consent under land transfer law created
                                                                                (1999/C 204/58)
     after the signature of the EEA Agreement on 2 May 1992?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 27 April 1999 from the
                                                                         Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1999, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo Boss Aktiengesellschaft
                                                                         v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O. on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Meriem                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
              Addou v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                           down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
                                                                         export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
                                                                         counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                         (Case C-180/99)                                 Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
                                                                         situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
                                                                         the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
                         (1999/C 204/57)                                 the European Community, temporarily detained by the
                                                                         customs authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                         regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                    its registered office in a Member State of the European
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                Community?
received at the Court Registry on 17 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Meriem Addou v Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
     to refugees and to members of their families who are                Travail de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre,
     nationals of a non-member country if such persons have              by judgment of that court of 7 May 1999 in the case of
     no right of free movement under the Treaty of 25 March              Rudy Grzelczyk against the Centre Public d’Aide Sociale
     1957 establishing the European Community, as amended                                d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve
     by the Treaty of 7 February 1992 on European Union?
                                                                                (Case C-184/99)
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply in the case where
     a refugee working as an employed person and the members                                     (1999/C 204/59)
     of his family have travelled directly to a Member State
     from a non-member country and have not moved within                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the Community?                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Travail
                                                                         de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre, of 7 May
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative: Is a               1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 May 1999, for a
     family benefit such as child-raising allowance under the            preliminary ruling in the case of Rudy Grzelczyk against the
     Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz (German Federal Law on                   Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve on
     Child-Raising Allowance) also payable to the spouse of              the following questions:
     such an employed person who is likewise not a national of
     a Member State and who is herself neither an employed               1. Is it contrary to Community law — more particularly, the
     person nor a recognised refugee?                                        principles of European citizenship and of non-
                                                                             discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty
                                                                             established in the European Community — for entitlement
(1) JO L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),       to a social benefit under a non-contributory scheme, such
    p. 416.                                                                  as that introduced by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974
                                                                             on the minimum means of subsistence, to be conferred
                                                                             only on nationals of the Member States to whom Regu-
                                                                             lation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (1) applies
                                                                             and not on all citizens of the Union?


title: Case C-82/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH v European Commission Appeal — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Articles 31 and 116 — Commission decision ordering the Member States to withdraw or amend national marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing the active substance ‘tolpérisone’

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-82/15 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Articles 31 and 116 - Commission decision ordering the Member States to withdraw or amend national marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing the active substance ‘tolpérisone’)
   (2016/C 038/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH (represented by: M. Ambrosius, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, A. Sipos and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-303/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2009 — AceaElectrabel v Commission (State aid — Energy sector — Investment aid for the construction of a distance heating system — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Obligation to repay first aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market — Concept of economic unit)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2009 — AceaElectrabel v Commission
   (Case T-303/05) (1)

   (State aid - Energy sector - Investment aid for the construction of a distance heating system - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Obligation to repay first aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market - Concept of economic unit)
   2009/C 256/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola, C. Bazoli and F. D'Alessandri, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. DiBucci and E. Righini, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Electrabel (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and C. Bazoli, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 8)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders AceaElectrabel to pay the costs, except those referred to in point 3 below;

               3.

               orders Electrabel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 257 of 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-380/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.; other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.; other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-380/17)
   (2017/C 300/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.

      Other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) and to the judgment of 18 October 2012 in Nolan (Case C-583/10, EU:C:2012:638), does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by courts in the Netherlands on the interpretation of provisions of that directive in proceedings concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a person with subsidiary protection status, if that directive has, under Netherlands law, been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to persons with subsidiary protection status?

               2.

               Does the system provided for by Council Directive 2003/86/EC … preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for consideration for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1)?
               For the purpose of answering this question, does any relevance attach to the fact that it is possible, in the event of the aforementioned period being exceeded, to submit an application for family reunification, whether or not after a rejection, in which an assessment is made as to whether the requirements laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/86/EC have been met and in which the interests and circumstances indicated in Articles 5(5) and 17 of that directive are taken into account?


title: Case C-332/03: Action brought on 29 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
4.10.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 239/3
—      Infringement of Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure           Further, is the use in a bank, as a credit institution, of balances
       of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits that        on a deposit account, funds being placed in that account, as
       in the present case the appeal was not accepted on the            provided for in Decision 1097/1959 of the Monetary Com-
       grounds of alleged failure to observe the period of               mittee referred to in this judgment (with the proceeds of
       confirmation, rather than the procedural time-limit which         imported foreign currency, and so forth), as deposits in
       was complied with by transmission of the fax.                     national currency, convertible into foreign currency, governed
                                                                         by Article 4 of that same directive, List D and item IX of the
                                                                         Nomenclature, which reads: ‘Opening and placing of funds on
—      Infringement of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure           current or deposit accounts, repatriation or use of balances on
       of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits, in         current or deposit accounts with credit institutions’, as that
       accordance with the principle of proportionality, that to         provision stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought
       the existing procedural time-limit, extended by ten days          by that provision?
       on account of distance, may be added ten additional days
       in order to validate an application and a list of annexes
       previously sent by fax.
                                                                         (1 ) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 p. 49.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Areiou Pagou                   Action brought on 29 July 2003 by the Commission
by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the case of                   of the European Communities against the Portuguese
        Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia                                                    Republic
                         (Case C-329/03)                                                            (Case C-332/03)
                         (2003/C 239/04)                                                            (2003/C 239/05)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
European Communities by order of the Areiou Pagou                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
(Supreme Court of Cassation) of 31 March 2003, received at               2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the Court Registry on 28 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling             represented by Thomas van Rijn and Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
in the case of Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia on          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
the following question:
Are (a) bonds issued by a bank in the form of a limited                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
company belonging, by virtue of its shares, to the State, with a
maturity of one year from issue which are dealt in on the
                                                                         1)     declare that:
money market, where they are quoted, or (b) bonds issued by
a bank in the form of a limited company with a maturity of
one year from issue which are dealt in on the money market,                     —     by failing to adopt appropriate rules for the use of
where they are quoted, governed by Article 4 of the First                             the quotas allocated to it for the fishing years from
Directive of the Council of the European Communities (921/                            1994 to 1996;
60) ( 1), List D and item VI of the Nomenclature, which reads
‘Short-term investments in Treasury bills and other securities
normally dealt in on the money market’, as that provision                       —     by failing to ensure compliance with Community
stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought or is to                        legislation in the field of conservation, by means of
be interpreted under a possible doctrine in international trade                       sufficient supervision of fishing activities and adqua-
of common experience, to the effect that securities such as                           te inspection of the fishing fleet and of the unloading
the one-year bonds in ETVA at issue constitute short-term                             and recording of catches in the fishing years 1994 to
investments?                                                                          1996;
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/4                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
      —     by failing to impose a provisional prohibition of             Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Portuguese Republic
            fishing on vessels flying its flag or registered in its           against Commission of the European Communities
            territory when the quota allocated to it had been
            exhausted, and by having finally prohibited fishing
            when its quota had already been greatly exceeded in
            the fishing years 1994 to 1996;                                                        (Case C-335/03)
      —     by failing to bring criminal or administrative pro-
            ceedings against the captains or any other persons                                     (2003/C 239/06)
            responsible for overfishing;
      —     by failing to ensure the effective operation of a
            validation system which included cross-checking
            and verification of data by means of a computerised
            data-base,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        Communities on 31 July 2003 by the Portuguese Republic,
      in the sphere of the management and monitoring of                   represented by Luís Fernandes, acting as Agent, and Carlos
      fishing quotas;                                                     Botelho Moniz and Eduardo Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
2)    order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
Portugal has failed to fulfil completely its Community obli-              —     annul Commission Decision No 2003/364/EC ( 1) of
gations concerning rules for the use of its catch quotas,                       15 May 2003 excluding from Community financing
monitoring and inspection, proceedings against the fishermen                    certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
in question and the setting-up of a computerised data-base.                     the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
During the fishing years 1994 to 1996, the Portuguese                           Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) so far as it
Republic:                                                                       concerns expenditure relating to Portugal;
a)    infringed Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No               —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
      3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Com-
      munity system for fisheries and aquaculture, which
      requires the Member States to adopt rules for the use of
      the quotas allocated to them;
b)    failed to ensure sufficient monitoring of fishing activities
      and inspection of the fishing fleet and the unloading and           Pleas in law and main arguments
      recording of catches;
                                                                          —     Error in law as a result of the misapplication of Article 6(5)
c)    infringed Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                                of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92. The Portuguese Govern-
      2847/93 which lays down obligations relating to suspen-
                                                                                ment is of the view that that rule was complied with in
      sion of fishing;
                                                                                the year in question, since applications for ‘animal’ aid
                                                                                and the relevant checks must be understood and assessed
d)    infringed the obligation to bring criminal or administrat-                from the point of view of the unicity of the holding, that
      ive proceedings against the natural or legal persons                      is, taken globally ‘animal’ aid schemes as a whole
      responsible for overfishing;                                              (rather than each of the schemes independently, as the
                                                                                Commission appears to maintain). Thus:
e)    infringed Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/
      93, which requires the Member States to establish a
      validation system comprising, in particular, cross-check-                 —     Portugal adopted an approach centring on holdings,
      ing and verification of data resulting from those obli-                         devising an integrated application common to the
      gations and to create a computerised data-base in which                         various ‘animal’ aid schemes available under the
      those data are stored.                                                          EAGGF Guarantee section, in the context of which
                                                                                the checks are carried out. In the year in question,
                                                                                the minimum percentage of lawful applications were
                                                                                checked on the spot during the retention period.


title: Case T-140/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014  — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/56

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home)
   (Case T-140/14)
   2014/C 135/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by R. Lange, G. Hild and E. Schalast, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 December 2013 in Case R 450/2013-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘gel nails at home’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 11 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 11 331 634

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-513/14: Action brought on 7 July 2014  — GreenPack v OHIM (greenpack)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/48

         Action brought on 7 July 2014 — GreenPack v OHIM (greenpack)
   (Case T-513/14)
   2014/C 303/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GreenPack GmbH (Henningsdorf, Germany) (represented by P. Ruess und A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 2324/2013-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘greenpack’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 26  706

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009


title: Case C-340/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2014  — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats; other party: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2014 — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats; other party: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam
   (Case C-340/14)
   2014/C 339/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats

      Other party: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the transportation of passengers by open sloop on the internal waterways of Amsterdam, with the main purpose of providing, for payment, tours and rentals for festive occasions, as in the case in the present proceedings, a service to which the provisions of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) apply, regard being had to the exception set out in Article 2(2)(d) of that directive in respect of services in the field of transport?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
               Does Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 apply to purely internal situations, or is the assessment of the question as to whether that chapter applies subject to the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in purely internal situations?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is that the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in a purely internal situation applies to the assessment of the question as to whether Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 is applicable:

                           (a)

                           Should the national courts apply the provisions laid down in Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the service provider has not established himself on a cross-border basis and does not offer services on a cross-border basis, but nevertheless relies on those provisions?

                           (b)

                           Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the services are expected to be provided mainly to residents of the Netherlands?

                           (c)

                           In order to answer that question, is it necessary to determine whether undertakings established in other Member States have shown or will show genuine interest in providing the same or comparable services?

               4.

               Does it follow from Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2006/123 that, if the number of authorisations is limited by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, the duration of the validity of the authorisations must also be limited, regard being had also to the objective pursued by that directive of securing free access to the market for services, or is this a matter which lies within the discretion of the competent authority of the Member State?


title: Case C-316/08: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Latex Srl v Agenzie delle Entrate, Amministrazione Dell’Economia e delle Finanze

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/28

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Latex Srl v Agenzie delle Entrate, Amministrazione Dell’Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-316/08) (1)

   2010/C 134/44

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-158/11: Action brought on 10 March 2011 — Magnesitas de Rubián SA v Parliament and Council

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/25

         Action brought on 10 March 2011 — Magnesitas de Rubián SA v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-158/11)
   2011/C 139/48
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián SA (Incio, Spain) Magnesitas Navarras SA (Zubiri, Spain), Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonimos Metalleftiki Viomichaniki Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann, P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Parliament and Council

      Form of order sought

   Annulment of the individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17), insofar as it imposes an obligation on the Member States to respect the conclusions on best available techniques contained in section 3.5 of the reference document on best available techniques for the cement, lime and magnesium oxide manufacturing industries (OJ 2010 C 166, p. 5), as regards the conditions for the permits which the competent authorities grant to manufacturing facilities for magnesium oxide subject to permits under that directive.
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, as its main claim,

               —

               in the alternative and in the event that the General Court should not annul that decision as regards section 3.5 of the reference document in its entirety, annul it in any event as regards section 3.5.5.4 thereof, including in particular the emission levels set out in Table 3.11. and

               —

               in any event, order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission does not have the requisite authority. It is argued that the European Union has no authority to include the manufacture of magnesium dioxide in the reference document.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breaches of essential procedural rules, specifically:

                           —

                           failure to notify the applicants of the opening of the procedure for drawing up the reference document and its late participation in that procedure.

                           —

                           the absence in the reference document of the ‘split views’ presented by the applicants.

                           —

                           failure to observe the deadline for the analysis of the final draft of the reference document.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 1 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control.
               It is alleged in this connection that the reference document infringes the objective declared in Article 1 of the directive, consisting in the protection of the environment taken as a whole, so that the conclusions contained in section 3.5 of that document, which the contested decision makes binding, also infringe that objective.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the general principle of equal treatment insofar as the contested decision treats undertakings which are in different situations in the same way.


title: Case T-318/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Othman v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Adaptation of heads of claim — Fundamental rights — Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Othman v Council and Commission
   (Case T-318/01) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Adaptation of heads of claim - Fundamental rights - Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)
   2009/C 180/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Omar Mohammed Othman (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by J. Walsh, Barrister, and F. Lindsley and S. Woodhouse, Solicitors, and subsequently by S. Cox, Barrister and H. Miller, Solicitor)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, and subsequently by M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents); and the Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by A. van Solinge and C. Brown and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by J. Collins, subsequently by C. Gibbs, and then by E. O’Neill, and lastly by I. Rao, Agents, assisted initially by S. Moore, and subsequently by M. Hoskins, Barristers)

      Re:

   Application, originally for annulment of, first, Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1) and, second, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 amending, for the third time, Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2001 L 277, p. 25) and, subsequently, for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 amending, for the third time, Regulation No 467/2001;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation No 467/2001 in so far as it concerns Mr Omar Mohammed Othman;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Mr Othman, and the sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 16.3.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2000 in Case T-188/98: Aldo Kuĳer v Council of the European Union (Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for access — Protection of the public interest — International relations — Obligation to state reasons — Partial access)

text:
24.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 176/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 May 2000
                           of 6 April 2000                                 in Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
in Case T-188/98: Aldo Kuijer v Council of the European                    (Officials — Course of thalassotherapy treatment — Refusal
                                Union (1)                                         of prior authorisation — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/36)
(Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public
access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for                                   (Language of the case: French)
access — Protection of the public interest — International
  relations — Obligation to state reasons — Partial access)                In Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux, an official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, residing at Mensdorf (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                           by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias
                           (2000/C 176/35)                                 Hardt, v European Parliament (Agent: M. Moore) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements
                                                                           Office of 6 March 1998 rejecting the applicant’s request for
                                                                           prior authorisation to undergo a course of thermal treatment
                                                                           — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of:
                     (Language of the case: English)                       A. Potocki, sitting as a single judge; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           11 May 2000, in which it:
In Case T-188/98 Aldo Kuijer, residing in Utrecht (Nether-                 1. Dismisses the application;
lands), represented by O.W. Brouwer and F.P. Louis, of the
Brussels Bar, and D. Curtin, Professor at the University of                2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Utrecht, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe v Council of the                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
European Union, (Agents: M. Bauer and M. Bishop) —
application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 28 Sep-
tember 1998, as amended by its decision of 18 May 1999,
refusing the applicant access to certain documents — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
6 April 2000, in which it:
                                                                                of 28 January 2000
1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 28 September 1998, as                  in Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Con-
     amended by the decision of 18 May 1999, refusing the applicant        sommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
     access to certain reports drawn up by the Centre for Information,                             Communities (1)
     Discussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain reports of joint
     missions or reports of missions undertaken by Member States           (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association —
     sent to the Centre, and to the list of contact persons in the         Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Application
     Member States involved with asylum cases;                             for annulment — Non-adoption of definitive regulation —
                                                                                No need to adjudicate)
2. Orders the Council to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its                                 (2000/C 176/37)
     own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  In Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Consomma-
                                                                           teurs (BEUC), established in Brussels, represented by B. O’Con-
                                                                           nor, Solicitor, and B. Garcı́a Porras, of the Bar of Salamanca
                                                                           (Spain), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde,
                                                                           supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                           Ireland (Agent: M. Ewing) v Commission of the European


title: Case C-10/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Taxation in Finland of second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States — Compatibility of national legislation with the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, the Sixth VAT Directive and Directive 2006/112/EC)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-10/08) (1)

   (Taxation in Finland of second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States - Compatibility of national legislation with the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, the Sixth VAT Directive and Directive 2006/112/EC)
   2009/C 113/17
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), now Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for value added tax on the tax on vehicles and a right to deduct the corresponding amount from output value added tax — Application of the same taxable value to vehicles under three months old and to new vehicles — Application of a level of depreciation of 0,8 % per month to vehicles under six months old where there are no equivalent vehicles on the national market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing the tax referred to in Article 5 of Law No 1482/1994 on vehicle tax (autoverolaki (1482/1994)) of 29 December 1994 to be deducted from the value added tax, pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) of Law No 1501/1993 on value added tax (arvonlisäverolaki (1501/1993)) of 30 December 1993, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, reproduced in Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Declares that, by retaining, when taxing vehicles, the same taxable value for vehicles under three months old as for new vehicles, the Finnish Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC;

               3.

               Orders the action to be dismissed as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Finnish Republic to pay, apart from its own costs, three-quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

               5.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-132/09: Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/21

         Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-132/09)
   2009/C 153/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Eggers and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by refusing to pay the costs of teaching equipment and materials for the European schools, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Seat Agreement of 1962, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission alleges a breach of the Agreement concluded in October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the Kingdom of Belgium, involving a refusal by the latter to pay the expenses for teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools established on its territory.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits, firstly, that it follows from the second paragraph of Article 6 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools of 21 June 1994 (1) that each Member State must treat the European Schools as an educational establishment governed by its national public law. As a consequence, the European Schools should be financed by the Belgian public authorities and be treated in the same way as national State schools, with regard both to initial equipment required for the opening or extension of a European School and to the annual maintenance and running costs of those schools. In that respect, the federalisation of education in Belgium cannot justify a refusal by the Belgian authorities to finance the annual running costs of the European Schools, since it follows from settled case-law that a Member State cannot avoid obligations which it has assumed by delegating exercise of that power to infra-State public bodies.
   In reply to the objections raised by the Belgian authorities, the Commission observes, secondly, that the conclusions arising from the meeting of the Board of Governors held at Karlsruhe in May 1967 in no way call into question the financing obligations on that State in its capacity as a State in which the Schools have a seat.
   First of all, at Karlsruhe, the Board of Governors merely drew up guidelines for a standard protocol of agreement with the Member States in which the Schools have a seat and, in any event, it has no authority, having regard to the hierarchy of norms, to amend the Seat Agreement of 1962.
   Next, that Karlsruhe ‘decision’ cannot in any way be interpreted as a ‘subsequent agreement or practice of the parties’ within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, with regard to the interpretation to given to the Seat Agreement, in the absence of a succession of established acts or declarations calling into question the financing obligation laid down by the Seat Agreement. In addition, a number of documents and instances of financing by Belgium after 1967 attest to that obligation to pay the costs of teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools.

      (1)  OJ L 212, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2016 in Case E-25/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA — Failure to recover unlawfully granted aid)

text:
               6.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/12

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 29 July 2016
   in Case E-25/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA — Failure to recover unlawfully granted aid)
   (2017/C 108/10)
   In Case E-25/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to take within the prescribed time all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland; by failing to cancel, within the prescribed time any outstanding payments referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision; and by failing to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority, within the prescribed time, with the information outlined in Article 8 of that decision, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and under Articles 6, 7 and 8 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and Articles 6, 7 and 8 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014 on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland, by failing, within the time limits prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision, to cancel any outstanding payments referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision, and to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority with the information outlined in Article 8 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


C 213/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-35/02 (1)                               Removal from the register of Case T-62/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/88)                                                             (2003/C 213/90)
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 8 April 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-35/02: Alitalia             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— Linee Aeree Italiane SpA v Commission of the European                     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-62/03: Georges
Communities.                                                                Vassilakis v Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.05.2002.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-103/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-85/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/89)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/91)
                   (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-103/02: Ineos
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Phenol GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European
                                                                            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/03:
Communities.
                                                                            Government of the Cayman Islands v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 124 of 24.05.2003.


title: Case T-167/02: Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Etablissements Toulorge against European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
C 180/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
Action brought on 28 May 2002 by José Pedro Pessoa e                     Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Etablissements
Costa against Commission of the European Communities                     Toulorge against European Parliament and Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                         (Case T-166/02)
                                                                                (Case T-167/02)
                         (2002/C 180/55)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/56)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                  (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 May 2002 by José Pedro Pessoa
e Costa, residing in Lisbon, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 30 May 2002
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001 to             by Etablissements Toulorge, whose registered office is at
      bring disciplinary proceedings against him;                        Bricquebec (France), represented by Denis Waelbroek and Dirk
                                                                         Brinckman, lawyers.
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority to reject
      the request submitted on 6 July 2001 by the Director of
      the EMCDDA to transfer him to the EMCDDA, pursuant
      to Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —    annul Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                              and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council
                                                                              Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/
                                                                              357/EEC;
The applicant requested, upon returning from a period of
unpaid leave, to be transferred to the European Monitoring               —    declare the non-contractual liability of the Community,
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). The transfer                    in the body of the Council and the European Parliament
was refused by the Commission because disciplinary proceed-                   and order the defendants to make good all the damage
ings had been instituted against the applicant following charges              suffered by the applicant as a consequence of that
laid by the Portuguese authorities.                                           directive;
In support of his application, the applicant claims that                 —    order the parties to produce, within a reasonable period
the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him                 after the Court of First Instance delivers its decision, exact
infringes the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                      figures to quantify the damage which the parties have
Regulations. Furthermore, the applicant pleads breach of the                  agreed or, in the absence of such agreement, order the
principle that innocence must be presumed and infringement                    parties to transmit to the Court of First Instance, within
of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, the rights of the defence             the same period, additional claims containing such exact
and the findings of the Heads of Administration No 103 J/77.                  figures;
The applicant claims, finally that the decision refusing to              —    order interest to be paid at an annual rate of 8 % (or any
transfer him to the EMCDDA is unlawful inasmuch as it is                      other appropriate rate which the Court may decide) with
based on a decision which is itself unlawful, namely the                      effect from the date of the decision of the Court finding
decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings.                                the Community liable until actual payment is made;
                                                                         —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 180/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The contested decision introduces an obligation on the                    —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs for production                          OHIM of 6 March 2002;
animals to provide an indication of the precise quantities of all
the raw material used in their products in order to protect
public health by improving the traceability of the ingredients.           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
According to the applicant, the effect of that measure is to
oblige disclosure of basic know-how and business secrets of
manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs.
In support of its application, the applicant claims breach of
several rights guaranteed by Community law and of objectives              Pleas in law and main arguments
pursued by the Treaty. Furthermore, the contested directive
runs counter to the safeguarding of undistorted competition
and the encouragement of technical research and development.              Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
Moreover, it disregards property rights and the right freely to           munity trade mark:
pursue an economic activity. The applicant claims, finally, that
the directive runs counter to the objective of improving
agricultural products and protecting the environment.                     The Community trade          Community figurative trade mark
                                                                          mark concerned:              No 1.178.425, which depicts a
                                                                                bottle of beer bearing the words
The applicant maintains, moreover, that the contested measure                                          ‘NEGRA MODELO’ on the label,
is disproportionate. According to the applicant, the directive                                         for products falling within Class-
is not capable of attaining the objective of protecting public                                         es 25 (clothing), 32 (beer) and 42
health and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to                                               (services related to bars, res-
achieve such an objective. The applicant further claims that                                           taurants and nightclubs)
the directive does not of itself ensure the quality of the
products nor improves the traceability of the ingredients and
that it places a disproportionate burden with regard to                   Proprietor of the right to   MODELO CONTINENTE HIPER-
labelling.                                                                the trade mark or sign       MERCADOS S.A.
                                                                          asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                          sition in the opposition
Finally, the applicant claims that the measure is based on an             proceedings:
erroneous legal basis. In its view, Article 37 of the EC Treaty
should be chosen as the legal basis instead of Article 152 of
the Treaty in view of the fact that the contested directive bears         Trade mark or sign           Portuguese figurative marks
no relationship to veterinary or plant health matters.                    asserted by way of oppo-     No 295.800 and 295.804, which
                                                                          sition in the opposition     distinguish goods in Classes 25
                                                                          proceedings:                 (clothing, including footwear) and
                                                                                33 (syrups, beer and non-
                                                                                alcoholic beverages) of the inter-
                                                                                national classification respectively
Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Cervecerı́a Modelo,                      Decision of the Oppo-        Provisional refusal to register the
S.A. de C.V. against Office for the Harmonization of the
                                                                          sition Division:             Community trade mark in issue
    Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                to distinguish ‘beer’ and regis-
                                                                                tration in respect of ‘clothing’ and
                         (Case T-169/02)                                                               ‘services related to bars, res-
                                                                                taurants and nightclubs’
                         (2002/C 180/57)
                                                                          Decision of the Board of     Decision of the Opposition Div-
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        Appeal:                      ision upheld
                                                                          Grounds of claim:            Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likeli-
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                             hood of confusion)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
30 May 2002 by Cervecerı́a Modelo, S.A. de C.V., whose
registered office is in Mexico, D.F., represented by Carlos Lamo
Devesa and Antonio Velázquez Ibáñez.


title: Case T-288/11: Action brought on 1 June 2011 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/34

         Action brought on 1 June 2011 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission
   (Case T-288/11)
   2011/C 252/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision by which the European Commission rejected the applicant’s tender and awarded the contract to another tenderer, a decision of which the applicant was informed by letter of 1 April 2011, received on 5 April 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure for the conclusion of a contract for Maintenance of HVAC, sprinkler, and water and sanitary installations at the Joseph Bech Building in Luxembourg and awarding the contract to another tenderer (OJ 2010/S 241-367523).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 89(1) and (2) and Article 92 of the Financial Regulation, Article 135(1) and (5) of the Implementing Regulation and Article 49 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, (1) and of the principles of transparency, equality and proportionality in so far as the European Commission requires the tenderer to provide ‘the valid ISO certificate for the whole of its maintenance activity, issued by the certification body’. The applicant complains, first, that the European Commission did not set out the selection criterion clearly and precisely in the absence of any specification in the tender specifications of the ISO certification number which was required to be submitted, second, that it required from the tenderers ISO certification ‘for the whole of their maintenance activity’ and not only for the market concerned and, third, that it did not allow the tenderers to demonstrate that their level of quality was similar to that of the ISO certification.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons stemming from Article 296 TFEU, Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation, infringement of the tendering specifications and the annexes thereto, and a manifest error of assessment in so far as the European Commission rejected A+P KIEFFER OMNITEC’s tender on the ground that it did not satisfy criterion No 16, since it had not submitted conclusive and relevant documents to demonstrate that the candidates possessed the required qualifications. The applicant claims, first, that criterion No 16 concerned ‘the statement indicating the average annual manpower with the required profile during the last three years present at all the members of the possible group’ and that page 27/37 of Annex II to the tendering specifications refers only to the candidates’ knowledge of languages and, second, that the applicant did indeed adduce proof that one of the candidates had the qualifications required at page 28/38 of Annex II to the tendering specifications and submitted conclusive documents to that effect. In the case of the other candidate, the contract documents did not require that the qualifications required for site manager be satisfied.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-59/09: Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Germany v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/35

         Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-59/09)
   2009/C 113/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision SG.E.3/RG/mbp D(2008)1 0067 of 5 December 2008 granting private applicants access to documents originating from German authorities submitted in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations No 2005/4569, irrespective of objection raised by the German Government pursuant to Article 2(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant has brought an action against the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2008 to grant private third parties access to documents originating from German authorities submitted in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, irrespective of objection raised by the German Government pursuant to Article 2(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001. (1)

   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in conjunction with the principle of loyal cooperation between the Community and the Member States laid down in Article 10 EC.
   Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/200 allows Member States to make the disclosure of documents originating from their authorities being held by Community institutions subject to their prior agreement. The Commission has no right to conduct its own extensive assessment of the reasons for the refusal to grant access to documents under Articles 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In its judgment in Case C-64/05 P Sweden v Commission and Others, (2) the Court of Justice laid down definitive criteria that allow the relevant Community institution to disregard the Member State’s objection and to conduct its own assessment of whether the grounds of refusal as set out in Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 are present: the objection must either provide ‘no reasons at all’ or the reasons must ‘not [be] put forward in terms of’ the grounds of refusal.
   Read in conjunction with the principle of loyal cooperation between the Community and the Member States laid down in Article 10 EC, the above means that, as a rule, the Member State has the right to undertake the assessment of whether any of the grounds of refusal listed in Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 apply. The Commission has a right to disregard the refusal to grant access only in exceptional cases, where the explanation offered by the Member State does not fulfil those criteria adequately. A comparison with Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 also dictates this. The two criteria laid down in the case-law are essential procedural requirements which, as regards content, must be modelled on the duty to state reasons in Article 253 EC. A judicial review of whether the refusal to grant access to documents falls under Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is to be undertaken by the Community courts, not the Commission.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that even if the Court were to interpret the judgment in Case C-64/05 P as meaning that objection raised by a Member State pursuant to Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is only binding on the Community institution where it complies with Article 4(1) to (3) of that regulation, the Commission was at most authorised to examine whether the reasons submitted by the Member State contained manifest errors. However, the statement of reasons submitted by Germany could in now way be considered to be manifestly defective.

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

      (2)  Case C-64/05 P Sweden v Commission and Others [2007] ECR I-113839.


title: Case C-26/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 19 January 2009 — The Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 19 January 2009 — The Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited
   (Case C-26/09)
   2009/C 90/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Motor Insurers’ Bureau

      Defendants: Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited

      Questions referred

      Question 1

               (a)

               Where the national law of the member state provides that the charges incurred by the victim of a motor accident in subsequently hiring a replacement vehicle are recoverable from the person responsible, does Article 1.4 of the Directive (1) permit MIB to exclude any liability for such charges where compensation will ultimately be paid over to the insurer who issued a post-accident policy covering the hire charges in the event of non-recovery from the person responsible?

               (b)

               If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative, is it permissible for the compensation by MIB to be limited to the premium, if any, payable to the insurers who have paid the hire charges?

         Question 2
   If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative:
   Is the national court required to interpret the Uninsured Drivers Agreement so as to give effect to the Directive in accordance with the principles stated by the Court of Justice in Case C-106/89 Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion [1990] ECR I-4135? In other words, does ‘the whole body of rules of national law’ to which the third indent of paragraph 120 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kruz [2004] ECR I-8835 refers, include an agreement such as the Uninsured Drivers Agreement?
   Question 3
   If the answer to Question 1(a) is the negative:
   Does Article 1.4 of the Directive have direct effect?
   Question 4
   If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:

               (a)

               For the purposes of determining whether a body such as MIB is one against which the provisions of a directive which are capable of having direct effect may be relied upon:

                           (i)

                           Are the criteria identified by the Court of Justice in Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR 1-3313 the criteria by reference to which such a determination should be made?

                           (ii)

                           If the determination should be made by reference to some (but not all) of such criteria and/or to additional criteria, by reference to which criteria should the determination be made?

               (b)

               Is it solely for the domestic court to determine whether a body fulfils the relevant criteria?

               (c)

               Does a body with the characteristics of MIB fulfil the criteria such that the provisions of a directive which have direct effect may be relied upon against it?

      (1)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles OJ L 8, p. 17


title: Case C-159/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Franz Lesar v Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) — Article 6(2) — Age discrimination — Determination of pension rights of former civil servants — Periods of apprenticeship and of work — Failure to take into account such periods completed before the age of 18)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Franz Lesar v Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt
   (Case C-159/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(2) - Age discrimination - Determination of pension rights of former civil servants - Periods of apprenticeship and of work - Failure to take into account such periods completed before the age of 18))
   (2016/C 305/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Franz Lesar

      Defendant: Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1), 2(2)(a) and 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the taking into account of periods of apprenticeship and of employment completed by a civil servant before reaching the age of 18 for the purpose of granting a pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation seeks to guarantee, within a civil service retirement scheme, a uniform age for admission to that scheme and a uniform age for entitlement to the retirement benefits provided under that scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.