title: Case T-103/12: Action brought on 24 February 2012 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/31

         Action brought on 24 February 2012 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-103/12)
   2012/C 151/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: T&L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission and the European Union, represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application for annulment under Article 263(4) TFEU and/or plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU against Regulation 1240/2011, Regulation 1308/2011, Regulation 1239/2011, Regulation 1281/2011, Regulation 1316/2011, Regulation 1384/2011, Regulation 27/2012 and Regulation 57/2012 admissible and well founded;

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 of 30 November 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012 (OJ 2011 L 318, p. 9);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2011 of 14 December 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/2012 (OJ 2011 L 332, p. 8);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 of 30 November 2011 opening a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty (OJ 2011 L 318, p. 4);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1281/2011 of 8 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 327, p. 60);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1316/2011 of 15 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 334, p. 16);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1384/2011 of 22 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 33);

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 27/2012 of 12 January 2012 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 9, p. 12); and

               —

               Annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 57/2012 of 23 January 2012 suspending the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 12);

               —

               In the alternative, declare the plea of illegality against Articles 186(a) and 187 of Regulation 1234/2007 (1) admissible and well founded and declare those provisions illegal, as well as annul the contested regulations, which are directly or indirectly based on those provisions;

               —

               Condemn the EU as represented by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission’s breach of its legal obligations and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants during the period 1 April 2011 to 29 January 2012 at 87 399 257 EUR plus any ongoing losses suffered by the applicants after that date or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage;

               —

               Order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by your Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of your Court’s judgement until actual payment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination as the contested measures discriminate against the case cane sugar refiners in favour of beet processors.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Regulation 1234/2007 and absence of an appropriate legal basis as the defendant has no power to increase quotas and is required to impose high, dissuasive levies on the release of out-of-quota sugar, nor does the defendant have mandate or power to adopt this kind of measure, which was never envisaged in the basic legislation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of legal certainty, as Regulation 1239/2011 and its implementing regulations created a system whereby custom duties are not predictable and fixed through the application of consistent, objective criteria, but are rather determined by subjective willingness to pay with no actual link with the actual products being imported.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality in so far as the defendant could easily have adopted less restrictive measures which would not have been taken exclusively to the detriment of importing refiners.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of legitimate expectations, as the defendant breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations to be treated in a balanced, fair and non-discriminatory manner.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of diligence, care and good administration, as the defendant failed in the first instance to act at all, despite repeated warnings of market disturbances, then went on to adopt manifestly inappropriate measures to tackle those disturbances, and in doing so upset the balance established by the Council between domestic producers and importing refiners.

         For the annulment of Regulation 57/2012 the applicants invoke only first, fourth and sixth pleas in law.
   In the alternative, the applicants invoke the above-mentioned pleas in law against Regulation 1239/2011 and Regulation 1308/2011, as a plea of illegality based on Article 277 TFEU. In the event that the Court rejects these grounds for annulment, the applicants raise a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU against Article 186a and 187 of Regulation 1234/2007 on which the contested regulations are based, and request the annulment of those provisions of Regulation 1234/2007 as well as the contested regulations.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union (Case C-132/97)

text:
No C 142/ 16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                    matters before the Court of Justice, acting as Agent, with
Grande Instance de Dijon by judgments of that court of                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
26 February 1997 in the cases of Procureur de la                         Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais .
Republique and Syndicat de Defense de l'Epoisses and
Others against Yvon Chiciak and Jean-Pierre Fol
                                respectively                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  ( Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 )
                              ( 97/C 142/32 )                            — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in
                                                                                the Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97 (')
                                                                                of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                            for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may
Grande Instance de Dijon ( Regional Court, Dijon ) of                           be fished,
26 February 1997, which were received at the Court
Registry on 1 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
cases of Procureur de la République and Syndicat de Dé
fense de l'Epoisses, Institut National des Appellations
d'Origine Contrôlées ( INAO ), Association Nationale                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
d'Appellation d'Origine Laitière Française ( ANAOF)
against Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak ( Case                       The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
C-129/97) and Procureur de la République and Syndicat                    those in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
de Défense de l'Epoisses, Institut National des Appella
tions d'Origine Contrôlées ( INAO ), Association Nationale               (') OJ No L 66, 6 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .
d'Appellation d'Origine Laitière Française ( ANAOF) Sari .               ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
' Laiterie de la Côte', SA 'Fromagerie Henri Germain ' and
SA ' Fromagerie Berthaut' against Jean-Pierre Fol ( Case
C-130/97) on the following questions:
— Does Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 (')
       preclude as from its entry into force any residual
       power on the part of the Member States to alter a
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-23/96 ( 1 )
       preexisting designation of origin ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/34 )
— Do the particulars given in the form of footnotes to
      the annex to Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/                 By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Sixth
       96 ( 2 ) constitute an exhaustive list of parts of names          Chamber of the Court Of Justice of the European
       made up of several terms which as such are not                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       protected ?                                                       Case C-23/96 : Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         v. French Republic .
(') OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                              (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of                                  Removal from the register of Case C-46/95 ( ')
        Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/35
                            ( Case C-132/97 )
                              ( 97/C 142/33 )
                                                                         By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  removal from the register of Case C-46/95 : Commission
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Communities on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of                           Luxembourg.
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado
del Estado of the State Legal Department dealing with                    O OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .


title: Case F-123/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Palleschi v Commission (Civil Service — Contract staff for auxiliary tasks — Article 3c of the CEOS — Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/23

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Palleschi v Commission
   (Case F-123/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contract staff for auxiliary tasks - Article 3c of the CEOS - Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2013/C 377/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria-Pia Palleschi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s request that her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks be reclassified as a temporary contract for an indefinite period

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               2.

               Ms Palleschi shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012, p. 9.


title: Case F-27/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Ghigna v Commission

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Ghigna v Commission
   (Case F-27/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/64
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.


title: Case T-379/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Kaimer and Others v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/29

         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Kaimer and Others v Commission
   (Case T-379/06)
   (2007/C 42/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding (Essen, Germany), SANHA GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) and Sanha Italia srl. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: J. Brück, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant's decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006, as amended by the defendant's decision of 29 September 2006, served on applicants 1 to 3 on 5 October 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings);

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the duration of the alleged infringement by applicants 1 to 3 in Article 1 of the decision and cancel or reduce the fine imposed on applicants 1 to 3 in Article 3 of the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings. In the contested the decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicants took part in a series of agreements in the form of price-fixing, establishing price lists and rebates, establishing mechanisms for the implementation of price increases, dividing up markets and customers and exchanging other economic information on the market for copper fittings and copper alloy fittings.
   The applicants put forward five pleas in support of their claims.
   First of all, it is submitted, in particular, that the defendant based its reasoning on documents, in respect of which the applicants were not granted a fair hearing.
   Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC. According to the applicants the contested decision is not adequately reasoned on the ground that the facts at issue were not properly assessed. In addition, exculpatory facts were not taken into account and evidence was incorrectly evaluated.
   Furthermore, the applicants criticise the fact that the facts, as established by the Commission, were deemed to be a complex infringement contrary to Article 81(1) EC.
   Fourthly, it is submitted, in the alternative, that the calculation of the fine reveals a misuse of powers in that it was based on an excessive duration of the infringement and that the applicants did not benefit from mitigating circumstances.
   Finally, the applicants maintain that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality with the amount of the fine imposed.


title: Case C-181/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Plenary of the First Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, by judgment of that court of 13 April 2000 in the case of Flightline Ltd against Secretário de Estado dos Transportes e Comunicações and TAP — Transportes Aéreos Porguueses, SA

text:
C 192/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
3. Does the fact that a body uses surpluses which it systemati-          3. Must        Article      1(e)     of     Commission      Decision
     cally aims to make for the purpose of its benefits in the                No 94/698/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that, by mak-
     form of a facility to play a type of sport as provided for               ing approval of the aid which it provides for subject to the
     in Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive justify the                condition that Portugal honour the undertaking to apply
     conclusion that it does not aim to make a profit within the              Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 to the Auton-
     meaning of that provision, or is such a conclusion                       omous Regions, with effect from 1 January 1996, by
     possible only where the intention is incidentally and not                publishing the public service obligations for the routes in
     systematically to make operating surpluses which are used                question (‘pursuant to Chapter IV, point III’), Portugal is
     as described? In answering these questions must account                  precluded from exercising the power granted to Member
     also be taken of the first indent of Article 13(A)(2) of the             States by Article 3(2)?
     Sixth Directive and, if so, how is that provision to be
     interpreted? In particular, in the second part of the
     provision must ‘systematically’ be read between ‘arising’
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
     and ‘shall’, or ‘merely incidentally’?
                                                                             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ
                                                                             1992 L 240, p. 8).
                                                                         (2) Commission Decision 94/698/EC of 6 July 1994 concerning
                                                                             increase in capital, credit guarantees and tax exemption in favour
                                                                             of TAP (Transportes Aéreos Portugueses) (OJ 1994 L 279, p. 29).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Plenary of the
First Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo,
by judgment of that court of 13 April 2000 in the case of
Flightline Ltd against Secretário de Estado dos Transpor-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de
tes e Comunicações and TAP — Transportes Aéreos                         Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5 de Oviedo (Court
                          Porguueses, SA                                 of First Instance and Preliminary Investigations, No 5,
                                                                         Oviedo) by order of that court of 13 April 2000 in the
                                                                         case of Victoria González Sánchez v Medicina Asturiana
                          (Case C-181/00)                                                                   SA
                         (2000/C 192/24)                                                            (Case C-183/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (2000/C 192/25)
European Communities by judgment of the Plenary of the First
Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Administrative Court) of 13 April 2000, which was received
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Juzgado de Primera
at the Court Registry on 15 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         Instancia e Instrucción No 5 de Oviedo of 13 April 2000,
in the case of Flightline Ltd against Secretário de Estado dos
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 16 May 2000, for a
Transportes e Comunicações and TAP — Transportes Aéreos
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Victoria González Sánchez v
Porguueses, SA on the following question:
                                                                         Medicina Asturiana SA on the following question:
1. Does the exercise by a Member State of the rights and
     powers provided for by Article 4 of Council Regulation              Must Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July
     (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 necessarily presup-            1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
     pose or mean that the power provided for in Article 3(2)            administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
     of that regulation of that Member State to be able to               liability for defective products be interpreted as meaning that
     restrict, until 1 April 1997, competition in cabotage               it precludes the restriction or limitation, as a result of
     services within its territory is waived?                            transposition of the Directive, of rights which had been granted
                                                                         to consumers by the legislation of the Member State?
2. May a Member State in a public tender procedure organised
     in 1995 for the provision of scheduled air services on a
     route subject to public service obligations imposed on              (1) OJ L 210, p. 29.
     such a route under Article 4 of the Regulation require air
     carriers licensed by another Member State which submit
     bids to meet the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of
     that same regulation?


title: Case C-124/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 March 2011 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 March 2011 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich
   (Case C-124/11)
   2011/C 269/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Defendant: Karen Dittrich

      Question referred

   Does Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment (1) and occupation apply to national legislation on the grant of assistance to public servants in cases of illness?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) by order of that court of 12 January 1998 in the case of M. Amengual Far v. J. Amengual Far (Case C-12/98)

text:
C 72/12              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.3.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht           Must the answer to that question be different in the case
Heilbronn by order of that court of 16 June 1997 in the           of taking part in a competition to find the national
    case of Dansommer A/S, Denmark v. Andreas Götz                champion of the Member State concerned?
                        (Case C-8/98)
                         (98/C 72/21)                             Further, may the person in question claim the right to be
                                                                  treated in the same way as nationals of that State with
                                                                  respect to the teams selected by the national sports
                                                                  federation of the Member State concerned for
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  participation in major international tournaments and
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                  competitions such as the European or World
(Regional Court), Heilbronn, of 16 June 1997, which was
                                                                  Championships or the Olympic Games, or may the
received at the Court Registry on 14 January 1998, for a
                                                                  national federations reserve such selection for their
preliminary ruling in the case of Dansommer A/S,
                                                                  nationals exclusively?
Denmark v. Andreas Götz on the following question:
                                                                  (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
Is Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention applicable to letting           1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                      Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968, p. 475).
agreements for holiday homes where the liability of the           (2) Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
tour operator is limited to the letting of a holiday home             abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the
and travel costs insurance in the event of cancellation               Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
provided for by way of a form, but the owner and lessee               establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172,
of the holiday home are not resident in the same                      28.6.1973, p. 14).
Contracting state?
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de           Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) by order of
PremieÁre Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of          that court of 12 January 1998 in the case of M. Amengual
5 January 1998 in the case of Ermanno Agostini and                                      Far v. J. Amengual Far
Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de Judo et
                                                                                (Case C-12/98)
Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL
                        (Case C-9/98)                                                         (98/C 72/23)
                         (98/C 72/22)
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  European Communities by order of the Audiencia
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the            Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) (Provincial
European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil             Court, Mallorca, Third Chamber) of 12 January 1998,
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de Namur            which was received at the Court Registry on 20 January
(Court of First Instance, Namur) of 5 January 1998,               1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of M. Amengual
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January            Far v. J. Amengual Far on the following questions:
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ermanno
Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de
Judo et Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de            1. Has the Spanish law on VAT, by making subject to
Judo ASBL on the following questions:                                  that tax any letting or lease of immovable property in
                                                                       which an economic activity is pursued, transposed
                                                                       correctly Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
Is it consistent or not with the Treaty of Rome, in
particular Articles 6, 48 and 59 et seq. thereof, and with
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) and Council Directive             2. Should the Court rule that Article 13B of Directive
73/148/EEC (2) to prohibit a national of a Member State                77/388/EEC has not been correctly transposed, is that
of the European Union from taking part in a sporting                   Community provision, in so far as it lays down a
competition, whether as a professional, semi-professional              general exemption from VAT in respect of leases of
or amateur, on the ground that the person in question                  immovable property, directly applicable?
does not possess the nationality of the Member State on
whose territory the competition is organised, where it is
known that that person is the child of workers who are            (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
established in that Member State and has himself acquired
the status of worker on the territory of that Member
State?


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Pauletic Antonio Succ. di Pauletic Igor against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-607/97)

text:
C 72/20               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Autotrasporti                 Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
Silvano Zottich against the Commission of the European              Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                          Communities
                       (Case T-605/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (98/C 72/45)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          30 July 1997,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                                                                         the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
1997 by Autotrasporti Silvano Zottich, represented by
                                                                         was paid,
Marcello Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of
Florence and Trieste, with an address for service at the
latter's Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.                   Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                    relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
     was paid,
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Pauletic Antonio
                                                                    Succ. di Pauletic Igor against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case T-607/97)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (98/C 72/47)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                                                                    1997 by Pauletic Antonio Succ. di Pauletic Igor,
                                                                    represented by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro
                                                                    Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and Trieste, with an
                                                                    address for service at the latter's Chambers at 17 Via
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Zootrans SNC
                                                                    XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-606/97)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (98/C 72/46)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          30 July 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                      the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
1997 by Zootrans SNC, represented by Marcello Clarich                    the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and                    was paid,
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 72/21
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                1997 marketing year (1). Under Article 1, for the 1996/
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  1997 olive oil marketing year the estimated production
                                                                    shall be 1 859 400 tonnes, and the unit amount of the
                                                                    production aid that may be paid in advance shall be ECU
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 90,32 per 100 kilograms'. The applicant is of the view in
                                                                    this regard that that provision was adopted on the basis of
                                                                    the olive oil production forecast provided by the Member
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those            States to the Management Committee for Oils and Fats.
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                    The applicant's main complaint concerns the aid
                                                                    coefficient which, given the enormous production forecast
( ) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
 1
                                                                    by Spain, led to an exceptional overstepping of the
                                                                    guaranteed maximum quantity (GMQ) included in the
                                                                    price, which within the system of the common
                                                                    organisation of the market in olive oil was such as to
                                                                    reduce by approximately 30 % the amount of the unit
                                                                    production aid for the 1996/1997 marketing year (which
                                                                    was moreover reduced by nearly 10 % in the preceding
Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Regione Puglia                year), thus having a devastating and decisive impact on
   against the Commission of the European Communities               the Italian agricultural economy, in particular on that of
                       (Case T-609/97)                              Regione Puglia which, in the applicant's view, is in
                                                                    absolute terms the foremost olive-oil producing region in
                          (98/C 72/48)                              the context of Community countries, together with
                                                                    Andalusia.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    The arguments of Regione Puglia centre essentially on the
                                                                    fact that the Commission fixed the amount of the unit aid
An action against the Commission of the European                    on the basis of a statement of production by Spain and is
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   not based on information drawn from the mandatory
Instance of the European Communities on 23 December                 register of olive cultivation provided for by Council
1997 by Regione Puglia, represented by Francesco Rosi               Regulation (EEC) No 154/75 of 21 January 1975 (2).
and Antonio Campagnola, of the Rome Bar, with an                    Moreover, the said State does not have a monitoring body
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                at national level, as required by Community law. Thus
Penning & AssocieÂs, 31 Grand-Rue.                                  information on Spanish olive production lacks the
                                                                    objective verification demanded by the Community.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    The applicant also states in this regard that the
                                                                    Commission failed to carry out an investigation and to
Ð annul Commission            Regulation  No    1979/97    of       verify the information forwarded. The applicant is of the
     10 October 1997,                                               view in this regard that the contested regulation creates a
                                                                    serious disparity between the way in which are treated
                                                                    those producer countries which, by adhering to the
Ð in the alternative, annul Regulation No 1979/97 in so             obligations imposed by Community regulations, have their
     far as it accepts as correct the statement on Spain's          aid reduced, and other countries such as Spain which
     production and in any event declare unlawful the               manage to have an exceptional level of production
     production value declared by Spain itself and thus             accepted without it being submitted to the investigation
     redetermine the amount of the unit aid on the basis of         procedures provided for by the legislation in force. So far
     the production declared by the States by reference to          as Regione Puglia is concerned, to declare such a situation
     the usual information in accordance with the                   lawful, endorsing the defendant's conduct, would amount
     Community legislation in force,                                to legitimizing a situation of absolute uncertainty to the
                                                                    extent of completely negating the role of the GMQ and
                                                                    even undermining the common organization itself of the
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            market.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 278, 11.10.1997, p. 12.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (2) Regulation (EEC) No 154/75 of the Council of 21 January
                                                                        1975 on the establishment of a register of olive cultivation in
                                                                        the Member States producing olive oil (OJ L 19, 24.1.1975,
By the present action Regione Puglia contests Regulation                p. 1).
No 1979/97 of 10 October 1997 fixing the estimated
production of olive oil and the amount of the unit
production aid that may be paid in advance for the 1996/


title: Case C-310/12: Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2013 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2013 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-310/12) (1)

   2013/C 344/92
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/52

         Action brought on 12 February 2004 by Faraj Hassan against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-49/04)
   (2004/C 94/140)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 February 2004 by Faraj Hassan, London, United Kingdom, represented by Mr E.Grieves, Barrister and Mr H. Miller Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 881/2002 of 27 May 2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2049/2003 20 November 2003 and/or Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2049/2003 in its entirety and/or in respect of the proscription of the applicant;

               —

               alternatively, declare the aforementioned Regulations inapplicable in respect of their applications to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

               —

               Order the Council to pay damages

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Regulation 881/2002 (1)1 makes provision for the freezing of funds and economic resources of persons listed in its Annex I. Article 7 paragraph 1 of that regulation authorises the Commission to amend or supplement Annex I on the basis of determinations made by either the United Nations Security Council or the Sanctions Committee. In November 2003 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council listed the applicant as a person to whom freezing of funds and assets should apply. By Regulation 2049/2003 (2) Official Journal L 303, 21/11/2003 P. 0020 - 0021 the Commission amended Annex I to Regulation 881/2002, adding the applicant's name to it.
   The applicant contests these measures invoking breaches of his fundamental human rights. He submits that the effect of the contested measures is to annihilate his peaceful enjoyment of his property and his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the same Convention. The applicant further submits that the defendants wholly failed to provide him, both before and after the decision was taken, with a fair hearing or effective remedy to counter any assertions of fact relied upon. According to the applicant this constitutes a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested measures violate the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, Official Journal L 139 , 29/05/2002 P. 0009 - 0022

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending for the 25th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001


title: Case T-579/11: Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/23

         Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council
   (Case T-579/11)
   2012/C 6/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tarif Akhras (Homs, Syria) (represented by: S. Ashley and S. Millar, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 3 of table A of the Annex to Council decision 2011/522/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 3 of table A of Annex I to Council regulation (EU) no 878/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council decision 2011/628/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 4(1) of Council decision 2011/273/CFSP (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 5(1) of Council regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           The substantive criteria for the designation of the applicant are not met and/or the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria were met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met. In particular, the applicant is not responsible for violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and he has not supported or benefited from the Syrian regime and he is not associated with anyone that is responsible for the violent repression or who has supported or benefited from the Syrian regime. The only allegation made against the applicant is that he has provided economic support for the Syrian regime. This is false.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           The designation of the applicant is in manifest violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms, including his right to respect for his private and family life, to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and ultimately his right to life and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           The Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to give the applicant individual notification of his designation, (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons and (c) to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.


title: Case T-544/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Hansen & Rosenthal and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/31

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Hansen & Rosenthal and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb v Commission
   (Case T-544/08)
   (2009/C 55/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG (Hamburg, Germany) and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Schulte and A. Lober, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes of the Commission of the European Communities in so far as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the applicants or, in the further alternative, reduce that fine;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes, in which the defendant found that certain undertakings, including the applicants, had participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the paraffin waxes sector, contrary to Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
   The applicants rely on six pleas in law in support of their action.
   By the first plea, the applicants assert that the decision is vitiated by a serious lack of reasoning. For that reason, it should be annulled by reason of infringement of Article 81 EC and consequential breach of the applicants' rights of defence.
   By the second plea, the applicants claim that the conditions for an infringement of Article 81 EC have not been met. The applicants and the other paraffin producers did not in any way have a common goal. The applicants did not participate in anti-competitive agreements or concerted practices. The dispatch of letters detailing price increases therefore did not serve to give effect to anti-competitive agreements or consultations, but rather took place within the context of relations with suppliers. Furthermore, no restriction of competition resulted otherwise from the exchange of information.
   By way of alternative submissions, the applicants take issue, in their third to sixth pleas in law, with the level of the fine imposed on them.

               —

               The Commission, they submit, unlawfully applied Guidelines on fines which were adopted only in 2006, even though the alleged offence was terminated in early 2005. In so doing, the Commission breached the principle that the administration is bound by its own acts, the prohibition of retroactive effect and the principle of legal certainty.

               —

               By their fourth plea in law, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in its calculation of the turnover relevant to the fine. In the relevant years 2002 to 2004, the applicants achieved a turnover with paraffin products of only EUR 18,97 million. The Commission, however, based its calculation of the fine on a turnover of EUR 26 million.

               —

               By their fifth plea, the applicants assert that the Commission also incorrectly assessed the severity of the offence. The fixing, at 17 %, of the proportion of the turnover relevant to the offence and of the entry fee is at variance with the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, insufficient account was taken of the size and importance of the undertakings.

               —

               By their sixth plea, the applicants contend that the Commission erred in its determination of the duration of the infringement alleged against the applicants. The Commission, they argue, has failed to prove that the applicants participated in the alleged restriction of competition for the entire period in respect of which they stand accused.


title: Case C-28/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-28/05)
   (2005/C 93/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (the Netherlands) of 18 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 28 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and W. Boekhout and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the obligation on Member States under the first indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of FMD is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC have direct effect?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as meaning that legal consequences must be attached to the fact that the presence of FMD is found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2a is in the affirmative:
                           Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provision places on the authorities of the Member States?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 2b means that individuals can rely on Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC:
                           What legal consequences must be attached to a finding of the presence of FMD by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

               3.

               Must Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted, having regard to Articles 11 and 13 thereof, as meaning that the mention in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC of ‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.?

               4.

               If it follows from the above answers that the presence of FMD can be found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC or that Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the mention of the ‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.:
               Must Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as providing that the national administrative authority authorised to adopt decisions is bound by the outcome of an examination by a laboratory which is listed in Annex B to Directive 85/551/EEC or – if the answer to Question 2a means that the administrative authority may base its FMD control measures also on results obtained by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC – by the results of the latter laboratory, or does the determination of final authority in that regard fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member State and must the court before which the main proceedings are pending examine whether the rules in that respect apply irrespective of whether the laboratory examination is carried out by virtue of a Community or national legal obligation and of whether or not the application of the provisions of national procedural law renders the implementation of the Community rules extremely difficult or practically impossible?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 means that the issue of whether national authorities are bound by the laboratory result is governed by Directive 85/511/EEC:
               Are the national authorities bound unconditionally by the result of an FMD examination carried out by a laboratory? If not, what margin of discretion does Directive 85/511/EEC leave these national authorities?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-99/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz): Robert Birkenbeul GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Koblenz (Anti-dumping duties on imports of electric motors)

text:
22 . 6 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/9
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs .                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Third Chamber)
(M OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                of 28 March 1996
                                                                         in Case C-99/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                         Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz ): Robert Birkenbeul GmbH
                                                                                & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Koblenz ( J )
                                                                              (Anti-dumping duties on imports of electric motors)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/ 18 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     (Language of tbe case: German)
                           ( Fifth Chamber )
                        of 28 March 1996                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-468/93 (reference to the Court for a preliminary
ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden ): Gemeente
                                                                         In Case C-99/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      Emmen v. Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( 1 )
                                                                         the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz
(Sixth VA TDirective — Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b)
                                                                         ( Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate ), Germany for a
                  — Supply of building land)                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                             ( 96/C 180/ 17 )                            court between Robert Birkenbeul GmbH & Co . KG v .
                                                                         Hauptzollamt Koblenz on the interpretation of Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 3019/86 of 30 September 1986
                 (Language of the case: Dutcb)                           imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                         standardized multiphase electric motors having an output of
                                                                         more than 0,75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia , the German Democratic
           published in the European Court Reports)                      Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the USSR ( OJ No
                                                                         L 280, 1986 , p . 68 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC )
In Case C-468/93 , reference to the Court under Article 177              No 864/87 of 23 March 1987 imposing a definitive
of the EC Treaty by the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden                        anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multiphase
 ( Regional Court of Appeal, Leeuwarden ) (Netherlands ) for             electric motors having an output of more than 0,75 kW but
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria,
court between Gemeente Emmen and Belastingdienst Grote                    Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic,
 Ondernemingen — on the interpretation of the combined                   Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union, and definitively
provisions of Article 13B ( h ) and Article 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth   collecting the amounts secured as provisional duties ( OJ No
 Council Directive ( 77/38 8/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the                 L 83 , 1987, p . 1 ), the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to               J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:                       J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; N.
 uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the          Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
 Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of D. A. O. Edward,                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         28 March 1996 in which it ruled :
 President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,
Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar: H. von                 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3019/86 of
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March                 30 September 1986 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
  1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                      duty on imports of standardized multiphase electric motors
                                                                          having an output of more than 0,75 k W but not more than
                                                                          75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the
 It is for the Member States to define the concept of 'building           German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania
 land' within the meaning of the combined provisions of                   and the USSR, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 864/87 of
 Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b) of the Sixth Council               23 March 1 987 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                             imports of standardized multiphase electric motors having
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to               an output of more than 0,75 kW but not more than 75 kW,
 turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:                       originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German
 uniform basis ofassessment. It therefore does not fall to the            Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Soviet
  Court to specify what degree of improvement land which                  Union, and definitively collecting the amounts secured as
 has not been built on must exhibit in order to be categorized            provisional duties, must be interpreted as applying only to
 as building land within the meaning of that Directive.                   imports of standardized, multiphase electric motors which
                                                                          are complete or finished.
  (!) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .


title: Case T-763/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/38

      Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)
      (Case T-763/14)
      (2015/C 073/49)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOPRAPUR’– International registration designating the European Union No 977 642

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1370/2013-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

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


title: Case T-677/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/54

         Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB
   (Case T-677/16)
   (2016/C 419/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi et M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

         accordingly:

               —

               annul the decision of the CSO, adopted on 29 February 2016 under the authority of the management board and notified to staff on 11 March 2016, to exclude the applicant from the ASI exercise for the year 2016;

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 5 July 2016 and received on 13 July 2016;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant consisting in the loss of a chance of obtaining an ASI in 2016 evaluated at EUR 49 102;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 15 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff (‘the conditions of employment’), of the right to career and promotion prospects as well as of the principle of legal certainty.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 December 2015 in Case F-94/14, Bowles v ECB, has not yet been implemented by the ECB. In particular, Circular No 1/2011 on additional salary increases (‘ASI’), declared illegal by the CST, has been neither withdrawn or amended.

                           —

                           He also submits that, in the absence of legislative change, staff representatives enjoying a full or substantial work dispensation are once more in a position where they are deprived of the possibility of wage growth or career progression, unlike the rest of the ECB staff.

                           —

                           Next, the applicant submits that his exclusion from the comparative exercise following which the decision to grant the ASI is taken by the ECB affects the legality of that exercise and that the exclusion, which in practice is final, clearly places him at a disadvantage and discriminates against him because of his role as a full-time staff representative.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the inability of the Chief Services Officer (‘CSO’) to decide not to follow the procedure set out in Circular No 1/2011 in respect of the applicant.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that, apart from the power to decide on who will receive the ASI, no other power relating to ASIs was delegated by the management board of the ECB to the CSO, including that to amend Circular No 1/2011 to exclude certain members of staff from its application.

                           —

                           Consequently, the CSO did not have the power to decide not to apply Circular No 1/2011 to the applicant, since that circular should have been applied to him if the CSO had acted according to the powers that had been delegated to it by the management board.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging lack of consultation of the Staff Committee, in breach of Article 27 of the Charter and Articles 48 and 49 of the conditions of employment

                           —

                           The applicant finally submits that, although the decision of the CSO was to be regarded as a decision amending Circular No 1/2011, the staff committee was not consulted beforehand on that decision. Since that consultation was required in particular before any changes to Circular No 1/2011, the ECB should therefore have consulted the Staff Committee in respect of that amendment.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 18 April 2002 in Case C-290/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Franz Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (Social security for migrant workers — Article 48 and Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 and Article 42 EC) — Article 9a and 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Accident at work occurring in another Member State before the entry into force of the regulation in the worker's home State — Incapacity for work)

text:
15.6.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/7
Rantou, G. Alexaki and S. Vodina): Application for a declar-                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
ation that, by not providing in the national legislation transpos-           Johann Franz Duchon and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der
ing Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the                      Angestellten, on the interpretation of Article 48 and Article 51
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative                    EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 and Article 42
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for                     EC), and on the interpretation and validity of Article 9a and
defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) for the threshold of               Article 94 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
EUR 500 laid down in Article 9(b) of that directive, the                     14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Hellenic Republic has transposed that provision only partially,              employed workers, to self-employed workers and to members
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),                of their families moving within the Community, as amended
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of the Council of
Pergola and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed,                     2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
Advocate General; Lynn Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for                 Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April 2002, in                     S. von Bahr, and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
which it:                                                                    Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                             on 18 April 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by not making provision in the national
      legislation transposing Council Directive 85/374/EEC of
      25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
      liability for defective products for the threshold of EUR 500
      referred to in Article 9(b) of the Directive, the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             1.   The situation of a person who is a national of a Member State,
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;
                                                                                who, before the accession of that State to the European Union,
                                                                                was employed in another Member State where he was the victim
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                of an accident at work, and who, after the accession of his home
                                                                                State, applies to the authorities in that State for a pension for
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                        incapacity for work as a result of that accident falls within the
                                                                                scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                                of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
                                                                                to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                                of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
                                                                                2 December 1996.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             2.   Article 94(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
                              18 April 2002                                       updated by Regulation No 118/97, read in conjunction with
                                                                                Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
in Case C-290/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              Article 39(2) EC), must be interpreted as precluding a national
from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Franz Duchon v                             provision such as Paragraph 235(3)(a) of the Allgemeines
     Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten (1)                            Sozialversicherungsgesetz, which provides an exception to the
                                                                                requirement of a qualifying period as a condition for the
                                                                                acquisition of the right to an occupational disability pension
(Social security for migrant workers — Article 48 and                             where that disability is the result of an accident at work —
Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                                which occurred, in the case in point, before the date of entry
Article 39 and Article 42 EC) — Article 9a and 94 of                              into force of that regulation in the Member State concerned —
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Accident at work occurring                          only in the event that the victim had been insured compulsorily
in another Member State before the entry into force of the                        or privately at the time of the accident under the legislation of
regulation in the worker’s home State — Incapacity for                            that State, to the exclusion of the legislation of all other
                                   work)                                          Member States.
                            (2002/C 144/10)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             3.   Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) must be interpreted as meaning that
                     in the European Court Reports)                               they preclude a provision such as Paragraph 234(1)(2)(b) of
                                                                                the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz, read in conjunction
                                                                                with Paragraph 236(3) of that law, which takes into account,
                                                                                for the purposes of prolongation of the reference period during
In Case C-290/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                        which the qualifying period for the acquisition of the right to a
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                        pension must have been completed, only those periods during
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
      which the insured person received a disability pension under a        concentrated butter intended for the manufacture of pastry
      national accident insurance scheme, without providing for the         products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs and, second, partial
      possibility of a prolongation of that period where a benefit of       annulment of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July
      such a kind was paid under the legislation of another Member          2000 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
      State.                                                                ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
                                                                            Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
4.    Article 9a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, a provision which is                 from Community financing expenditure in the amount of
      incompatible with Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty in           EUR 160 225 645 and EUR 3 188 322 respectively incurred
      so far as it excludes the possibility of taking into account, for     by the Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at
      the purposes of the prolongation of the reference period under        a reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for concentrated
      the legislation of a Member State, the periods during which           butter intended for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-
      industrial accident benefits were paid under the legislation of       cream and other foodstuffs, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      another Member State, is invalid.                                     composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hew-
                                                                            lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                  18 April 2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            18 April 2002
in Case C-332/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Action for annulment — Clearance of EAGGF accounts —                                               (Fourth Chamber)
Non-recognition of expenditure — Financial years 1995 to
                                1997)
                                                                                7 May 2002
                           (2002/C 144/11)
                                                                            in Case C-364/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Directive 97/70/EC — Failure to implement within the
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   prescribed period)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/12)
In Case C-332/00, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx) v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Bordes                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
and M. Niejahr): Application for, first, annulment of Com-
mission Decision 2000/448/EC of 5 July 2000 amending
Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure                                   in the European Court Reports)
for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
p. 46) in so far as it excludes from Community financing
expenditure in the amount of BEF 50 763 827 incurred by the                 In Case C-364/00, Commission of the European Communities
Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at a                  (Agent: T. van Rijn) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for butter and                 J. van Bakel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to


title: Case C-270/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community word mark SÔ:UNIC — Earlier national and Community word marks SO…?, SO…? ONE, SO…? CHIC — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Family of marks)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-270/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community word mark SÔ:UNIC - Earlier national and Community word marks SO…?, SO…? ONE, SO…? CHIC - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Family of marks))
   (2015/C 406/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Debonair Trading Internacional Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-503/15: Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Aranynektár v OHIM — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/43

         Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Aranynektár v OHIM — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)
   (Case T-503/15)
   (2015/C 354/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi kft (Dunavarsány, Hungary) (represented by: I. Molnár, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naturval Apícola, SL (Monserrat, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Natür-bal’ — Application for registration No 11 374 841

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2015 in Case R 1158/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present application (action);

               —

               alter the contested decision, reject the appeal made by the opponent against the decision of the Opposition Division (decision No B 2 156 383 dated 5 March 2014) and uphold the said decision of the Opposition Division;

               —

               condemn the opponent to bear the costs and fees of the proceedings.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

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


title: Case T-400/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — ZERO Industry v OHIM — zero International Holding (zerorh+)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/30

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — ZERO Industry v OHIM — zero International Holding (zerorh+)
   (Case T-400/06)
   (2007/C 56/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: ZERO Industry Srl (Como, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul decision R0958/2005-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, of 5 October 2006, notified to the applicant on 23 October 2006;

               —

               definitively reject the opposition brought by the defendant against the registration of Community trade mark application No 2004547, on behalf of Zero Industry Srl;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to proceed with the registration of the CTM lodged by ZERO Industry Srl;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market or any unsuccessful party to pay, jointly or severally, to the applicant the costs, expenses and fees, incurred in both the present proceedings and the opposition and appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘zerorh+’ for the goods in classes 9, 18 and 25 — application No 2004547

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited: the national figurative mark ‘zero’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 and the national word mark ‘zero’ for goods in class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94
   The applicant claims that the Board erred in its interpretation of the above provision insofar as it didn't take into account the visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the goods to which the conflicting trade marks relate.


title: Case F-40/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Council

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/27

         Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-40/15)
   (2015/C 178/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appraisal report produced for the applicant in respect of 2013;

               —

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