title: Case C-564/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2010 — Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen Kommanditgesellschaft

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2010 — Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen Kommanditgesellschaft
   (Case C-564/10)
   2011/C 72/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Respondent: Pfeifer & Langen Kommanditgesellschaft

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 3 of the Regulation (1) apply also to the limitation period for claims in respect of interest due under national law in addition to the repayment of the advantage wrongly obtained on the basis of an irregularity?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative: Is the length of the limitation period alone to be taken into account in the comparison of limitation periods provided for in Article 3(3) of the Regulation, or is it also necessary to take into account national legislation that postpones commencement of the limitation period to the end of the calendar year in which a claim arises (in this case, a claim in respect of interest), without any other circumstances being required?

               3.

               Does the limitation period for claims in respect of interest begin to run when an irregularity is committed or when a continuous or repeated irregularity ceases even if the claims in respect of interest relate to later periods and therefore do not arise until a later date? In the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, is commencement of the limitation period postponed under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Regulation until the day on which the irregularity ceases in the case of claims in respect of interest as well?

               4.

               When does the interrupting effect of a decision by a competent authority come to an end under the second sentence of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Regulation where that decision essentially establishes the claim in question (in this case, a claim in respect of interest)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-15/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Koppensteiner GmbH v Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures concerning the award of public procurement contracts — Decision to withdraw an invitation to tender after the opening of tenders — Judicial review — Scope — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-15/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Koppensteiner GmbH v Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public procurement contracts - Decision to withdraw an invitation to tender after the opening of tenders - Judicial review - Scope - Principle of effectiveness)
   (2005/C 182/26)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-15/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria), made by decision of 12 January 2004, received at the Court on 19 January 2004, in the proceedings between Koppensteiner GmbH and Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it ruled:
   The court or tribunal having jurisdiction is required to disapply national rules which prevent compliance with the obligation arising from Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd, trading as "Mars Ireland" (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before national and Community courts)

text:
21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          particular Article 177 thereof (now Article 234 EC), the Court
                                                                                of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs
                       of 14 December 2000                                       Agreement.
                                                                           2.    In a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in respect
in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a                          of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial
preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                             authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of
’s-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden):                                Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with
Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV                                   a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection of
(C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk,                             rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in
trading as ‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’                            the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of the TRIPs
v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV                                     Agreement.
                             (C-392/98) (1)
                                                                                In a field in which the Community has not yet legislated and
(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —                           which consequently falls within the competence of the Member
TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now                              States, the protection of intellectual property rights, and
Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice —                         measures adopted for that purpose by the judicial authorities,
Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures                         do not fall within the scope of Community law. Accordingly,
                — Interpretation — Direct effect)                                Community law neither requires nor forbids that the legal order
                                                                                of a Member State should accord to individuals the right to rely
                                                                                directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of the TRIPs
                           (2001/C 118/10)                                       Agreement or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule
                                                                                of their own motion.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         3.    Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement leaves to the Contracting
                                                                                Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the
                                                                                task of specifying whether the right to sue under general
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particu-
                    in the European Court Reports)                               lar unlawful competition, in order to protect an industrial
                                                                                design against copying is to be classified as an ‘Intellectual
In Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98: references to the                         property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article                            TRIPs Agreement.
234 EC) from the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage
(Netherlands) (C-300/98) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                 (1) OJ C 229 of 26.9.1998.
(Netherlands) (C-392/98) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Parfums
Christian Dior SA and Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98) and
between Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk, trading as
‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’, and Wilhelm Layher
GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-392/98) — on the
interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                                           of 14 December 2000
22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,              in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of                   the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,                   Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;                                        trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ (1)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
which it has ruled:                                                        Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before
                                                                                national and Community courts)
1.    Where the judicial authorities of the Member States are called
      upon to order provisional measures for the protection of
      intellectual property rights falling within the scope of the                                   (2001/C 118/11)
      Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
      Rights (the TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to
      the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                                  (Language of the case: English)
      approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
      within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of              In Case C-344/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      22 December 1994, and a case is brought before the Court of          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
      Justice in accordance with. the provisions of the EC Treaty, in      (Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/8                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
before that court between Masterfoods Ltd and HB Ice Cream                  Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
Ltd and between HB Ice Cream Ltd and Masterfoods Ltd,                       of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00);
trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ — on the interpretation of Articles 85,           Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del
86 and 222 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and                  Granducato ed altre Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of
295 EC), — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                the Treasury, the Budget and Planning and the Regione
President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                       Toscana (Case C-494/00); Associazione Agricola Produtto-
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                         ri Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen             of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-496/00);
and F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                         Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others v AIMA and
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it has ruled:                        (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and
                                                                            the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning
                                                                                (C-21/01)
Where a national court is ruling on an agreement or practice the
compatibility of which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81(1) EC and Article 82 EC) is already the subject of
a Commission decision, it cannot take a decision running counter to         (Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to
that of the Commission, even if the latter’s decision conflicts with a              C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01)
decision given by a national court of first instance. If the addressee of
the Commission decision has, within the period prescribed in the fifth
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC), brought an action for
annulment of that decision, it is for the national court to decide
whether to stay proceedings pending final judgment in that action for
annulment or in order to refer a question to the Court for a
preliminary ruling.                                                                                (2001/C 118/12)
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by orders of 6 July 2000 of the
                                                                            Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
                                                                            the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the cases of Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto
                                                                            Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
                                                                            Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
                                                                            and Planning (Case C-483/00); Azienda Agricola Antonio
                                                                            Tonon v AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of
                                                                            the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-485/00); Azienda
                                                                            Agricola Beniamino Brutti, by Mario Zanetti and Others v
                                                                            AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury,
                                                                            the Budget and Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                        Agricola Latte 2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l.
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of that                     v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Azienda Agricola                       (C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini
Nardoni di Benedetto Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli                     (C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry                     Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-483/00);                   Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00); Associazione
Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v AIMA, the other                            dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato ed altre
party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                    Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
Planning (C-485/00); Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti,                     and Planning and the Regione Toscana (Case C-494/00);
by Mario Zanetti and Others v AIMA, the other party                         Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others
being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                          v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa Agricola Latte                   Planning (C-496/00); Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others
2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l. v AIMA                      v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy                        (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and the
(C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini                      Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-21/01)
(C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);                       on the following questions:


title: Case C-254/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Automatic fire detection systems with point detectors — Requirement of conformity to a national standard — National approval procedure)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-254/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Automatic fire detection systems with point detectors - Requirement of conformity to a national standard - National approval procedure)
   (2007/C 170/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Wimmer, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — National regulations requiring automatic fire detection systems with point detectors lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member State which do not have the ‘EC’ mark to comply with the national standard, be subject to type approval and, in that connection, undergo tests and checks already carried out in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring that automatic fire detection systems with point detectors which were lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member State but which do not have the CE marking:

                           —

                           conform with Belgian standard NBN S 21-100 relating to the design of general automatic fire detection systems with point detectors, of September 1986, as modified by Addendum No 2 thereto of August 1996,

                           —

                           be subject to approval by BOSEC (Belgian Organisation for Security Certification), an obstacle made worse by the disproportionate costs which that approval incurs, and

                           —

                           undergo tests and checks in connection with that type approval which, essentially, duplicate the controls which have already been carried out under other procedures in another Member State,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case T-714/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/34

         Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-714/15)
   (2016/C 059/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that he has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to his reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.


title: Case C-132/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD
   (Case C-132/16)
   (2016/C 175/13)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’, Sofia

      Defendant: Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 26(1)(b), Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a provision of national law such as Article 70(1)(2) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax), which restricts the right to deduct input VAT in respect of the supply of services relating to construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party, which are used both by the recipient of the supply and by the third party, for the sole reason that the third party enjoys the result of those services free of charge, without taking into account the fact that the services are to be used in the context of the economic activity of the taxable recipient?

               2.

               Do Article 26(1)(b), Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a tax practice consisting of refusing to recognise the right to deduct the input VAT in respect of the supply of services, where the expenditure corresponding to those services is counted among the taxable person’s general costs, on the ground that it was incurred in order to construct or improve a property owned by another person, without taking into account the fact that that property is also to be used by the recipient of the supply of building services in the context of its economic activity?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-461/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Boyle v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/42

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Boyle v Commission
   (Case T-461/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cathal Boyle (Killybegs, Ireland), (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4751 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, and which was notified to the applicant on 16 July 2010, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Marie Dawn, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4751 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, and which was notified to the applicant on 16 July 2010, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Marie Dawn, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission breached an essential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursuant to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceeded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. It particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application because of the greater volume under the main deck of the proposed new vessel compared to the Marie Dawn is manifestly flawed, as is its assumption that the proposed new vessel’s ‘fishing effort’ will be grater than that of the Marie Dawn.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the right to equal treatment. It is submitted that Commission’s rejection of the application because of the greater volume under the main deck of his proposed new vessel constitutes gross difference in treatment amounting to impermissible discrimination against him compared to the wholly different approach adopted regarding the treatment of some of the applications for additional safety tonnage accepted in Commission Decision No 2003/245, as well as regarding one of the applications initially rejected in that decision but then accepted in the Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4765 of 13 July 2010.


title: Case C-181/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Cooperation — Distortion of evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) v European Commission
   (Case C-181/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Fines - Equal treatment - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation - Distortion of evidence - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to state reasons)
   2012/C 287/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-262/13: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-262/13) (1)

   2013/C 377/23
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case T-528/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Aloe Vera of America v OHIM — Detimos (FOREVER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FOREVER — Earlier national figurative mark 4 EVER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Aloe Vera of America v OHIM — Detimos (FOREVER)
   (Case T-528/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FOREVER - Earlier national figurative mark 4 EVER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2014/C 52/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aloe Vera of America, Inc. (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Detimos — Gestão Imobiliária, SA (Carregado, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2011 (Case R 742/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Diviril — Distribuidora de Viveres do Ribatejo, Lda and Aloe Vera of America, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aloe Vera of America, Inc. to pay the costs, including those incurred by Detimos — Gestão Imobiliária, SA in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 1997 in Joined Cases C-370/95, C-371/95 and C-372/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional): Careda SA, Federación Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar (Femara), Asociación Española de Empresarios de Máquinas Recreativas (Facomare) v. Administración General del Estado (Tax on the use of gaming machines - Turnover tax - Passing on to consumers)

text:
No C 252/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       exhibits the essential characteristics of VAT. That will
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                    he the case if it is generally applicable, if it is
                                                                           proportional to the price of the services, if it is
                        of 26 June 1997                                    charged at each stage of the production and
                                                                           distribution process and if it is imposed on the added
in Joined Cases C-370/95 , C-371/95 and C-372/95                           value of the services.
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Nacional ): Careda SA, Federación Nacional de Operado
res de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar (Femara), Asocia               (') OJNoC 16,20 . 1 . 1996 .
ción Española de Empresarios de Máquinas Recreativas
     (Facomare ) v. Administración General del Estado (')
(Tax on the use of gaming machines — Turnover tax —
                   Passing on to consumers)
                         ( 971C 252/ 18 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                of 26 June 1997
                                                                            in Case C-329/96: Commission of the European
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     Communities v. Hellenic Republic (')
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
                                                                                Directive 92/43/EEC)
In Joined Cases C-370/95, C-371 /95 and C-372/95 :
references to the Court under Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty                                    ( 97/C 252/19 )
from the Audiencia Nacional ( Spain ) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                   (Language of the case: Greek)
between Careda SA ( C-370/95 ), Federation Nacional de
Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar (Femara )
( C-371 /95 ), Asociacion Española de Empresarios de                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Máquinas Recreativas ( Facomare ) ( C-372/95 ) and                              published in the European Court Reports)
Administration       General    des    Estado    —     on   the
interpretation of Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                 In Case C-329/96 : Commission of the European
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                Communities (Agent: Maria Condou Durande ) v. Hellenic
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                    Republic (Agents: Evi Skandalou and Nana Daphniou ) —
assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court          application for a declaration that, by failing, within the
( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,              prescribed period, to adopt and/or notify to the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward,                Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges,                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/
Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar: H. A. Rühl,                   43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar has given a                habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( OJ No L 206, 22 . 7.
judgment on 26 June 1997, in which it has ruled:                      1992, p. 7), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                      obligations under the EC Treaty and that Directive — the
                                                                      Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
1 . Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC              Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann
     of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of               ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann, Judges; F. G.
     the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                   Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of              judgment on 26 June 1997, in which it:
     assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that, in
     order for a tax to be characterized as a turnover tax, it
     is not necessary for the relevant national legislation           1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     expressly to provide that it may be passed on to the                  period the laws, regulations and administrative
     consumer.                                                             provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                           92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                           natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the
2 . Article 33 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC is to be                  Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tax to be                under Article 23 thereof;
     characterized as a turnover tax, it is not necessary for
     the passing on of the tax to the consumer to be
     recorded in an invoice or other document serving as              2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     invoice. For the purposes of the application of this
     provision, it is in any event for the national court to          O OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996.
     establish whether the tax at issue is capable of being
     charged on the movement of goods and services in a
     manner comparable to VAT, by examining whether it


title: Case T-406/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/17

      Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)
      (Case T-406/16)
      (2016/C 364/14)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Dogg Label (Marseille, France) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party before the Board of Appeal: Patrick Chemoul (Paris, France)

         Details of the procedure before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other party before the Board of Appeal

         Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘JAPRAG’ — EU trade mark No 8 820 301

         Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 2336/2015-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to assent to the action for annulment brought by the company DOGG LABEL;

                  —

                  declare invalid the Community trade mark ‘JAPRAG’ No 8 820 301 for all the goods in Classes 18 and 25, on the basis of Article 53(1)(a) of the EU trade mark regulation in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-283/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Longinidis v Cedefop (Appeal — Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Longinidis v Cedefop
   (Case T-283/08) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence)
   2011/C 238/20
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented initially by: P. Giatagantzidis and S. Stavopoulou, later by: P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, assisted by P. Anestis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Longinidis v Cedefop (not yet published in the ECR) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Pavlos Longinidis to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training in the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, corrigendum OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-464/08: Action brought on 27 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/20

         Action brought on 27 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-464/08)
   (2008/C 327/34)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Simonsson and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (1), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 15 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28.


title: Action brought on 17 March 1997 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Council of the European Union (Case C-110/97)

text:
 14 . 6 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181 / 1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  an undertaking which took place before the Directive had
                        (Third Chamber)                                begun to produce legal effects in the Member State
                                                                       concerned.
                        of 17 April 1997
in Case C-336/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
the Juzgado de lo Social N° 16, Barcelona ): Pedro Burdalo
     Treveio and Others v. Fondo de Garantía Salarial ( 1 )
 (Directive 77/187/EEC — Transfers of undertakings —
Experience taken into account by a guarantee institution               Action brought on 17 March 1997 by the Kingdom of the
             for calculating redundancy payments)                         Netherlands against the Council of the European Union
                          ( 97/C 181 /01 )                                                     ( Case C-l 10/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /02 )
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 17 March 1997 by the Kingdom of the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                       Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra , acting as
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       Agent.
In Case C-336/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
of the EC Treaty by the Juzgado de lo Social N° 16 , Barce            — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97 of
lona ( Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
pending before that court between Burdalo Trevejo and                      respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
Others     and    Fondo   de   Garanti'a   Salarial —    on  the
                                                                           countries and territories ('),
interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) and the second
subparagraph of Article 3 ( 3 ) of Council Directive 77/187/          — order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings .
EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
businesses or parts of business ( OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977,          — Breach of Article 109 ( 1 ) of Council Decision 91 /482/
p. 26 ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of J. C.                    EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber, C.                         overseas countries and territories with the European
Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G.                   Economic Community (2 ) ( hereafter referred to as 'the
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given                   OCT Decision '): in the first place, it is wrongly
a judgment on 17 April 1997, in which it has ruled:                        assumed    that    Article     109  of the OCT Decision
                                                                           provides authorization for taking safeguard measures
                                                                           by reason of the scale or price of products imported
Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on                        from the OCT; second, it is patently incorrect to speak
the approximation of the laws of the Member States                         of rice originating in the OCT being imported at such
relating to the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the                  low prices and in such large quantities as to cause an
event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of                 actual or potential distortion of the Community
businesses cannot be relied on in relation to a transfer of                market in rice .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 181 /2             | EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
— Breach of Article 109 (2 ) of the OCT Decision: the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches Ver
      contested regulation primarily protects the exportation             waltungsgericht Regensburg by order of that court of
      to the Community of rice from non-member countries,                 13 March 1997 in the case of Willi Burstein against Frei
      whereas the order of preference EC-OCT-ACP follows                                               staat Bayern
      from the OCT Decision, in conjunction with Council                                            ( Case C-127/97
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 715/90; second, both the
       Commission and the Council have failed to keep track                                            97/C 181 /03
       of the consequences which this decision has for the
       OCT and the areas of industry most affected; third,
      the    Commission       and the      Council have   failed to       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
      conduct any investigation into less restrictive safeguard           the European Communities by order of the Bayerisches
       measures. Article 109 ( 2 ) is also breached by reason of          Verwaltungsgericht ( Bavarian Administrative Court),
      the fact that Article 3 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 304/          Regensburg, of 13 March 1997, received at the Court
       97 provides that the amount of the security in respect             Registry on 28 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
       of the import licences is to be equal to the customs               the case of Willi Burstein v. Freistaat Bayern on the
       duty applicable on the date on which the application               following questions:
      was lodged, and thus bears no relation to the security
       lodged pursuant to Regulation ( EC ) No 1162/95 ( in
      particular Article 10 ) or to that which must be lodged             A. Is Council Directive 91 /173/EEC ( ] ) of 21 March 1991
       pursuant to Article 4 (2 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 1522/                to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are
       96 .                                                                    bound only in relation to the prohibition on
                                                                               authorizing the use of pentachlorophenol and its salts
                                                                               and esters in concentrations equal to or greater than
                                                                               0,1 % by mass in substances or preparations placed on
— Misuse of powers : as soon as the OCT Decision                               the market, whereas they may set limit values
       resulted in the development of trade between the OCT                    independently in respect of products which have been
       and the Community and industry within the OCT                           treated with pentachlorophenol ?
       utilizing the opportunities provided by the OCT
      Decision began to expand, the Community attempted
       to counteract these results . The efforts to thwart the            B. If the answer to Question A is in the negative:
       results contemplated by the OCT Decision have not so
       far led to a complete cessation of rice exports to the
       Community. The taking of safeguard measures can still                   Does Directive 91 /173/EEC prohibit a more stringent
       achieve that end without any need for the Council to                    national provision, which was in force before the
       take an unanimous decision for the purpose, such as                     directive was issued, from being applied until the
      would indeed be necessary for a decision to amend the                    Commission takes a decision pursuant to the second
       OCT Decision .                                                          subparagraph of Article 100a (4 ) of the EC Treaty ?
                                                                          C. If the answer to Question B is in the affirmative :
— Breach of Annex IV to the OCT Decision : if the
       Council adopts a new decision (Article 1 ( 7) of
      Annex IV), it must also to that end conduct the                          May that national provision            be applied as from the
       required investigation and itself make the necessary                   time when it is confirmed by           the Commission, even if
       determination . The earlier Commission decision is                      the Commission 's decision is          subsequently challenged
       revised in full and replaced . The Council bears full                   before the Court of Justice          and declared void as a
                                                                               result ?
       responsibility for the new decision. In the present case,
       the Council in fact failed to conduct even a single
       investigation into the scale of imports of rice                         Does it make a difference if the Commission's decision
       originating in the OCT, the price level of OCT rice or                  was annulled on formal grounds only, and
       the ( threatened ) serious distortion of the Community
                                                                               subsequently reissued ? Does that later decision by the
       market in rice. Nor did the Council have before it any                  Commission have retroactive effect ?
      information provided by the Commission that would
       have enabled it to determine whether the inferences
       drawn by the Commission were accurate.                             D. If the answer to Question C is in the negative :
                                                                               May Directive 91/173/EEC be applied in the Member
— Breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                      States as directly effective law until such time as a
                                                                               final    determination        has   been    made   as  to     the
( 1 ) OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .                                      applicability of the national provision ?
(2 ) OJ No L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (') OJ No L 85 , 5 . 4 . 1991 , p . 34 .


title: Case T-493/12: Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Sanofi v OHIM — GP Pharm (GEPRAL)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/56

         Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Sanofi v OHIM — GP Pharm (GEPRAL)
   (Case T-493/12)
   2013/C 26/113
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanofi (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GP Pharm, SA (Sant Quinti de Mediona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2012 in case R 201/2012-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GEPRAL’, for goods in class 5 — International Registration No 1010832 designating the European Union

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration No 418607, with effect in Austria of the word mark ‘DELPRAL’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and allowed the International registration to proceed in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-241/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Others (Frozen beef - Common import rules - Community tariff quota - Newcomers)

text:
22 . 2 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/5
Diretti di Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del                General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
Polesine, Cirillo Brena, represented by Ivone Cacciavillani,          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
of the Venice Bar, with an address for service in                     1996 , in which it has ruled :
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Albert ler — appeal against the order of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities of                         Consideration in the light of the grounds stated in the
21 February 1995 in Case T- 117/94 Associazione                       order for reference of Articles 1 (2) and 2 (2) of
Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo and Others v.                   Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/94 of 31 January
Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-455, seeking to have that                  1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being           Council Regulation (EC) No 130/94 with regard to the
the Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:                   import arrangements for frozen beef falling within
Lucio Gussetti ), Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele —               CN code 0202 and products falling within CN code
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini ,              0206 29 91 has disclosed no factor capable of affecting
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,               their validity.
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass,                     (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
which it:
1 . dismisses the appeal;
2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                             of 12 December 1996
                                                                      in   Case C-298/95 Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (')
                                                                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure
                                                                      to transpose Directives 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 within the periods prescribed — Quality of fresh waters
                          (First Chamber)                             needing protection or improvement in order to support
                                                                             fish life — Quality required of shellfish waters)
                      of 12 December 1996
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/09 )
in Case C-241/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): The
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Queen v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex
         parte: Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Others (')
(Frozen beef — Common import rules — Community                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                   tariff quota — Newcomers)                                    published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 97/C 54/08 )
                                                                      In Case C-298/95 : Commission of the European
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Communities ( Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) v. Federal
                                                                      Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Roder and Bernd
                                                                      Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        adopt within the periods prescribed all the measures
           published in the European Court Reports)                   necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                      Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of
In Case C-241 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order
                                                                      to support fish life ( OJ No L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 ) and
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's              Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of
Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish
pending before that court between The Queen and the                   waters ( OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979, p. 47), the Federal
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Other — on the validity of                under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )          composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed rules                President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward , J.
 for the application of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94            P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
 with regard to the import arrangements for frozen beef                General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
 falling within CN code 0202 and products falling within               12 December 1996 , in which it:
 CN code 0206 29 91 ( OJ No L 27, 1 . 2 . 1994, p. 46 ) —
 the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon,
 President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and                         1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
 M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate                   prescribed all the measures necessary to comply with


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) — Tax on motor vehicles)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 173/19
1.    Statutory provisions of a Member State which, first, require          and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity       Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
      produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources        EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
      at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that         (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
      type of electricity, and, second, distribute the financial burden     J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators       has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
      do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1)       ruled:
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).
                                                                            Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
2.    In the current state of Community law concerning the electricity      and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
      market, such provisions are not incompatible with Article 30          a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).               Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State
                                                                            to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national
                                                                            rules of that State. The application of such rules might, however,
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 prove to be disproportionate where the workers involved are employees
                                                                            of an undertaking established in a frontier region who are required to
                                                                            carry out, on a part-time basis and for brief periods, a part of their
                                                                            work in the territory of one, or even several, Member States other
                                                                            than that in which the undertaking is established. It is consequently
                                                                            for the competent authorities of the host Member State to establish
                                                                            whether, and if so to what extent, application of national rules
                                                                            imposing a minimum wage on such an undertaking is necessary and
                                                                            proportionate in order to ensure the protection of the workers
                                                                            concerned.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 15 March 2001
in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Correctionnel d’Arlon, Belgium): André
    Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of                                                (Fifth Chamber)
workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC
                 — Guaranteed minimum wage)
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                           (2001/C 173/32)
                                                                            in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95
                                                                            of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
                                                                                Tax on motor vehicles)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/33)
In Case C-165/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                                            (Language of the case: French)
Correctionnel d’Arlon (Criminal Court, Arlon), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against André Mazzoleni, and Inter Surveillance                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable, third parties: Éric                             in the European Court Reports)
Guillaume and Others — on the interpretation of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the                   In Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities
framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)                 (Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/20              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
declaration that:
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
—    by retaining and applying rules providing for the appli-
     cation of a formula for calculating the engine rating for                                    of 15 March 2001
     administrative purposes which is unfavourable to vehicles
     fitted with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed
     automatic transmission, which has discriminatory or                 in Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communi-
     protectionist effects in the case of vehicles manufactured                       ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
     in other Member States compared with similar or compet-
     ing domestic vehicles, and
                                                                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                         Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC — Components and
                                                                              characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles)
—    by retaining provisions limiting the K factor for the
     purposes of calculating the engine rating for tax purposes                                     (2001/C 173/34)
     of vehicles approved on an individual basis between
     1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988 and which are
     regarded as equivalent to type-approved vehicles having
     an actual power output in excess of 100 kW,                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                               in the European Court Reports)
Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),             In Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communities
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,                  (Agent: C. van der Hauwaert) v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,          (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) application for a
has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it:                      declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                         adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures
                                                                         necessary in order to comply with Directive 97/24/EC of the
                                                                         European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on
1.   Declares that by retaining and applying rules providing for the     certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel
     application of a formula for calculating the engine rating for      motor vehicles (OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1), the Kingdom of the
     administrative purposes which is unfavourable to vehicles fitted    Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under
     with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed automatic             the EC Treaty — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
     transmission, which has discriminatory or protectionist effects     C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
     in the case of vehicles manufactured in other Member States         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
     compared with similar or competing domestic vehicles, the           General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the      2001, in which it:
     first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC);
                                                                         1.    Declares that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt
                                                                               the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                               order to comply with Directive 97/24/EC of the European
2.   Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain
                                                                               components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor
                                                                               vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply
                                                                               with its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case T-6/16: Action brought on 7 January 2016 — Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs v OHIM — Takko (Southern Territory 23°48’25"S)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/51

         Action brought on 7 January 2016 — Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs v OHIM — Takko (Southern Territory 23o48’25"S)
   (Case T-6/16)
   (2016/C 098/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs GmbH (Köngen, Germany) (represented by: T. Sambuc, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs GmbH

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Southern Territory 23o48’25"S’ –Community trade mark No 10 099 554

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 November 2015 in Case R 735/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision by declaring that the application for the invalidity of Community word mark 10 099 554 Southern Territory 23o48’25"S is rejected.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-382/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/22

         Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission
   (Case T-382/15)
   (2015/C 337/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Greenpeace Energy eG (Hamburg, Germany), oekostrom AG für Energieerzeugung und -handel (Vienna, Austria), Stadtwerke Aalen GmbH (Aalen, Germany), Stadtwerke Bietigheim-Bissingen GmbH (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany), Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany), Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH (Tübingen, Germany), Stadtwerke Mühlacker GmbH (Mühlacker, Germany), Energieversorgung Filstal GmbH & Co KG (Göppingen, Germany), Stadtwerke Mainz AG (Mainz, Germany), Stadtwerke Bochum Holding GmbH (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Nysten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action under paragraphs 4 and 1 of Article 263 TFEU to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the entire costs of the proceedings, including legal and travel costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, owing to the acceptance of a common interest
               The applicants assert that, in the context of its examination, the Commission mixes the criteria which must be observed pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and thereby incorrectly applies those provisions. In addition, the Commission finds a common interest in the support for nuclear energy, which does not exist in those circumstances. The Commission also accepts a common interest in the security of supply, which admittedly constitutes one of the objectives of the European Union in the field of energy, in accordance with Article 194 TFEU, but which cannot be met by the construction and operation of the nuclear power station concerned.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, owing to the acceptance of a market failure
               In that regard, it is claimed that the Commission wrongly finds the existence of a market failure resulting from the alleged impossibility of financing the nuclear power station on the financial markets and, in so doing, it also neglects the fact that other nuclear power stations, including those using the same technology, manage without comparable State aid. The applicants submit that the Commission also wrongly claims that a political decision may constitute a market failure.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, owing to the incorrect categorisation of the notified measure ‘Contract for Difference’ as investment aid — Application of a wrong standard of review
               In the context of the third plea in law, the applicants submit that both operating aid and investment aid as well as the difference between those two instruments are defined sufficiently clearly from a legal point of view. In the applicants’ view, the Commission misuses its powers by asserting the equivalence to investment aid and thus creating a new category, and it consequently applies a wrong standard of review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, owing to the acceptance of the appropriateness and incentive effect of the aid package
               The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission did not adequately examine the alternatives to the construction and operation of the nuclear power station with regard to the alleged objective of security of supply. In addition, the Commission examines, in a negligent manner, the question of how an undertaking would have acted without aid. Consequently, the Commission carries out an incorrect and incomplete examination of the appropriateness of the aid package.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, owing to the underestimation of the distortions to competition caused by the aid measure and the overestimation of the positive effects of the aid package
               Furthermore, the applicants complain that the Commission wrongly concludes that the distortions to competition must be neglected. The applicants submit that expert opinions demonstrate a more pronounced effect on market prices than what the Commission assumes, with the result that a neglect or misinterpretation of the information should be assumed.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) or infringement of Directive 2004/17/EC (2) and Directive 2004/18/EC (3), owing to the approval of the aid package without a call for tenders or an equivalent procedure
               In that regard, it is claimed, in particular, that the Commission erroneously assumed the non-applicability of the rules on public procurement in the present case, contrary to its previous decision-making practice. Its assessment of the facts is thus incorrect, vitiated by misuse of powers, and disregards the similarity with numerous other projects. The Commission also misuses its powers when it equates the United Kingdom Government’s call for expressions of interest with a procedure equivalent to a call for tenders.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the enhanced requirements associated with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, owing to the lack of justification for the inconsistent action of the Commission
               Within the context of this plea, the applicants assert, in essence, that the Commission contradicts on several occasions its own decision-making practice, without giving convincing reasons for doing so.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law: Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, owing to the general failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons
               In that regard, the applicants complain that the Commission incorrectly describes the methodology of the aid measures, for example by assuming an investment aid rather than an operating aid and by generally mixing the various elements. Furthermore, the Commission does not determine the total amount of the aid measures and does not sufficiently assess a possible accumulation. The applicants take the view that the reasons given for the acceptance of a common interest or of a market failure and the appropriateness of the aid package do not generally satisfy the requirements as to the statement of reasons.

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (2)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

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


title: Case F-60/13: Action brought on 26 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/29

         Action brought on 26 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-60/13)
   2013/C 274/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision to reject the request, made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for adjustment of the entries in respect of the applicant’s absences on account of sickness in the SysPer2 application.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision to reject Request No D/299/12, made by the applicant on 13 April 2012 concerning the adjustment of the entries in respect of the applicant’s absences on account of sickness in SysPer2, to take into account working days only, from 13 April 2009 to the date of the applicant’s request;

               —

               annul the express decision to reject Request No D/299/12, made by the applicant on 13 April 2012 concerning the five days deducted from the applicant’s leave entitlements for 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-359/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/25

         Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-359/11)
   2011/C 282/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hafez Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: P. Grollet and G. Karouni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant submits that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP, by which the Annex to Decision 2011/273/CFSP is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to the Decision of 23 May, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing. The applicant argues that his rights of defence have been infringed by the imposition of the penalties in question, without his having previously been heard, had the opportunity to defend himself or having been informed of the evidence on the basis of which the measures were adopted.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided for by the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The applicant criticises the Council for having adopted restrictive measures in respect of him without having informed him of the grounds, in order to enable him to put forward his pleas in defence. The applicant criticises the defendant for having merely used a general, stereotypical formulation, without specifying the factual and legal elements justifying its decision and the considerations which led it to adopt that measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the guarantee relating to effective judicial protection. The applicant argues that not only did he not have the opportunity to make his views duly known to the Council, but that, in the absence of any indication in the contested decision as to the specific and actual reasons justifying it, nor is he able to pursue his action properly before the General Court.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in that the restrictive measures, more specifically the measure freezing funds, constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental right to dispose freely of his assets.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to privacy, in that the measures freezing funds and restricting the freedom of movement also constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental right.


title: Case C-370/06: Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/15

         Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-370/06)
   (2006/C 261/28)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and P. Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 5 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15