title: Case C-533/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) — The concept of provision of services — Contract assigning intellectual property rights)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst
   (Case C-533/07) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - The concept of ‘provision of services’ - Contract assigning intellectual property rights)
   2009/C 141/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch

      Defendant: Gisela Weller-Lindhorst

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘provision of services’ and of the ‘place in a Member State where the services should have been provided’ — Jurisdiction over a case relating to the payment of royalties in respect of a licence to exploit a musical work

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is to be interpreted to the effect that a contract under which the owner of an intellectual property right grants its contractual partner the right to use that right in return for remuneration is not a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               In order to determine, under Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court having jurisdiction over an application for remuneration owed pursuant to a contract under which the owner of an intellectual property right grants to its contractual partner the right to use that right, reference must continue to be made to the principles which result from the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.


title: Case C-610/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-343/11 Netherlands v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/5

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-343/11 Netherlands v Commission
   (Case C-610/13 P)
   2014/C 31/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M.A.M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Case T-343/11;

               —

               in so far as the state of proceedings permits the Court to give final judgment, dispose of the case by annulling Decision 2011/244/EU; (1)

               —

               if the state of proceedings does not so permit, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               —

                     First ground
                  : erroneous interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1433/2003, (2) read in conjunction with Annex I, points 8 and 9, and Annex II, point 1, to that regulation, in so far as costs for the printing of packages were treated as packaging costs and as a result were considered ineligible.

               —

                     Second ground
                  : erroneous interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1433/2003, read in conjunction with points 8 and 9 of Annex I to that regulation, in so far as the wrong test was used for the requirements which apply to the description of promotional operations in an operational programme.

               —

                     Third ground
                  : incorrect application of Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (4) in so far as the Commission was allowed a less onerous burden of proof.

               —

                     Fourth ground
                  : erroneous interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation No 1432/2003, (5) read in conjunction with Article 11 of Regulation No 2200/96, (6) in so far as it was concluded that the producer organisation could not manage sales by means of seconded staff.

               —

                     Fifth ground
                  : erroneous interpretation of Article 21 of Regulation No 1432/2003 in so far as it was concluded that it was necessary to withdraw recognition from the producer organisation FresQ.

               —

                     Sixth ground
                  : incorrect application of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with Article 21 of Regulation No 1432/2003, in so far as all of the payments made by the producer organisation FresQ were excluded from financing.

      (1)  Decision of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational funds, operational programmes and financial assistance (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 25).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18).

      (6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).


title: Case T-416/04: Action brought on 18 October 2004 by Anna Kontouli against the Council of the European Union

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/23

         Action brought on 18 October 2004 by Anna Kontouli against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-416/04)
   (2005/C 31/46)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 2004 by Anna Kontouli, London, (United Kingdom), represented by V. Arkitidis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council's decision of 16 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90 paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations, concerning the setting of the appropriate correction coefficient of her pension;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant an amount equal to the balance between the amounts of pension paid to the applicant thus far and the amounts of pension that should have been paid to the applicant, should the correction coefficient of the applicant's pension have been set by reference to the United Kingdom since the applicant's right to pension was established on 1 May 2003; this balance to be increased by default interest equal to the interest rate set by the European Central Bank for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant compensation equal to 100,000 Euros for substantial non-contractual and moral damage suffered by the applicant throughout the administrative proceedings preceding the application and through the applicant's various oral and written communications with the Council's services; and

               —

               order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the Council.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a former official of the Council, receiving an invalidity pension as of 1 May 2003. After her retirement the applicant notified the Council that she had fixed her permanent residence in the United Kingdom and, on this information, the Council initially applied the correction coefficient for that country on the applicant's pension. However, considering that the applicant had provided contradictory information on her place of residence, the Council suspended the application of the correction coefficient for the United Kingdom, applying first the one for Belgium and later that of Greece, where the applicant's initial place of origin was situated. The applicant filed a complaint, which was rejected by the contested decision of 16 July 2004.
   In support of her application the applicant submits that she permanently and lawfully resides in the United Kingdom from 1 May 2003 onwards. She considers that by finding otherwise the Council violated Article 82 paragraph 1 of the Staff Regulations and committed a manifest error of assessment. She also submits that the Council failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision and infringed the general principle of legal certainty by reversing the legitimate expectations of the applicant. She further contends that the Council violated the principle of good administration and its duty of solicitude towards the applicant. Finally, the applicant submits that she was substantially hurt by the overall attitude of the defendant towards her and by the fact that her daughter had to abandon her doctoral studies in Greece in order to move to the United Kingdom and work there to provide the applicant with financial support. The applicant requests the court to grant her compensation for this moral damage.


title: Case C-199/07: Action brought on 12 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/20

         Action brought on 12 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-199/07)
   (2007/C 117/34)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing de facto an additional criterion for automatic exclusion beyond those which are expressly provided for in Article 31(2) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, to the detriment of foreign consultancy firms, and by failing to distinguish in the contest in question between qualitative selection criteria and award criteria, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil obligations flowing from Community legislation on public procurement, more specifically Articles 4(2), 31(1) and (2) and 34(1)(a) of Directive 93/38/EEC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the principle of mutual recognition of formal qualifications which is governed by Community law on public procurement, and Articles 12 and 49 of the Treaty;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission received a complaint concerning irregularities in connection with a design contest announced by ERGA OSA AE in 2003 for ‘Studies relating to building and electrical-engineering works and installations — first phase of the group of stations in the Thriasio Plain’.
   In light of the Court's case-law, the Commission submits that the condition for consultancy firms' participation in the design contest which envisages their grading, in accordance with the Greek system, in classes, and indeed in the ‘specified ’classes, introduces de facto a ground of exclusion beyond the grounds of exclusion which are expressly mentioned in Article 31(2) of Directive 93/38/EEC, and amounts in some instances to discrimination against foreign consultancy firms, in breach of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/38/EEC.
   The Commission also submits that that condition in the foregoing notice of competition infringes the principle of mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications and Articles 12 and 49 EC.
   The Commission further contends that the notice of competition does not separate the selection and award stages and confuses the selection criteria with the award criteria, in breach of Articles 31 and 34 of Directive 93/38/EEC.
   Finally, the Commission contends that the repeal, relied on by the Greek authorities, of a law previously in force did not eliminate the infringement alleged against it, since it is the misapplication of the relevant Community provisions by the Greek authorities that is at issue, and not a failure adequately to transpose them into Greek law.
   Consequently, the Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2), 31(1) and (2) and 34(1)(a) of Directive 93/38/EEC and has infringed the principle of mutual recognition of formal qualifications and Articles 12 and 49 EC.

      (1)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.


title: Case F-45/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 1 July 2010 — Mandt v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Survivor's pension — Article 79 of the Staff Regulations — Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse — Recognition of two persons as the surviving spouse — Reduction to 50 % — Legitimate expectation — Requirement of consistency)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 1 July 2010 — Mandt v Parliament
   (Case F-45/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Survivor's pension - Article 79 of the Staff Regulations - Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Surviving spouse - Recognition of two persons as the surviving spouse - Reduction to 50 % - Legitimate expectation - Requirement of consistency)
   2010/C 274/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wolfgang Mandt (Kreuztal, Germany) (represented by: B. Kolb, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, K. Zejdová, J. F. de Wachter and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents, then, J. F. de Wachter, K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun Neumann who died on 9 October 2009, leaving Shirley Meyer as sole heir (Bedburg-Hau, Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 8.2.2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint regarding the reduction of the survivor's pension to 50 % — Claim for full payment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision on the application requesting the Parliament to pay Mr Mandt the survivor's pension in full in so far as it relates to the period after 31 October 2009.

               2.

               The remainder of the application is dismissed.

               3.

               The parties and the intervener shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007, p. 43.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-165/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from Landgericht Stuttgart): Mathias Längst, interested parties SABU Schuh & Marketing GmbH and Others (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Notary's charges — Notary employed as a civil servant — Payment to the State of a fixed portion of the charges)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 30 June 2005
   in Case C-165/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from Landgericht Stuttgart): Mathias Längst, interested parties SABU Schuh & Marketing GmbH and Others (1)

   (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Notary's charges - Notary employed as a civil servant - Payment to the State of a fixed portion of the charges)
   (2005/C 205/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-165/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany), made by decision of 7 April 2003, received at the Court on 10 April 2003, in the proceedings Mathias Längst, interested parties: SABU Schuh & Marketing GmbH, Präsident des Landgerichts Stuttgart, Bezirksrevisor des Landgerichts Stuttgart, the Court: (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and J. Makarczyk, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that the charges of a notary employed as a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording a transaction covered by that directive constitute taxes for the purposes of that directive where, under the relevant national legislation, notaries authorised to practise are not all civil servants and are themselves owed the charges in question, and, in addition, those notaries who are employed as civil servants are required to remit a portion of those charges to the public authority which uses that revenue for the financing of its official business.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003


title: Case C-353/08: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, FIRMA Srl, Laboratori Guidotti SpA, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA, Istituto Lusofarmaco d'Italia SpA, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico SpA v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/105/EEC — Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use — Article 4(1) — Price freeze — Price reductions)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/13

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, FIRMA Srl, Laboratori Guidotti SpA, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA, Istituto Lusofarmaco d'Italia SpA, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico SpA v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-353/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use - Article 4(1) - Price freeze - Price reductions)
   2010/C 51/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, FIRMA Srl, Laboratori Guidotti SpA, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA, Istituto Lusofarmaco d'Italia SpA, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico SpA

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

      Intervening party: Bracco SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/15/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Medicinal products covered by a price freeze — Procedures to be followed in the event of any decrease in prices

      Operative part

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are respected, the competent authorities of a Member State may adopt general measures consisting of the reduction in the prices of all medicinal products or certain categories of medicinal products, even if the adoption of those measures is not preceded by a freezing of those prices.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are respected, the adoption of measures to reduce the prices of all medicinal products or certain categories of medicinal products is possible several times per year and for many years.

               3.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption of measures seeking to control the prices of all medicinal products or certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of expenditure predictions, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are respected and that those predictions are based on objective and verifiable information.

               4.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that it is the task of the Member States to determine, in compliance with the objective of transparency pursued by that directive and the requirements laid down in that provision, the criteria in accordance with which the macroeconomic conditions laid down in that provision are to be verified, and that that criteria may consist of pharmaceutical expenditure alone, of total health expenditure or other types of expenditure.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Action brought on 29 August 1997 by Sonja Vermeylen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-246/97)

text:
C 331 /24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 1 . 11 . 97
Action brought on 2 September 1997 by Chantal Mertens                 her as a result of the unlawfulness vitiating the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                proceedings in the said competiton.
                        ( Case T-244/97)
                          ( 97/C 331/48 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 29 August 1997 by Sonja Vermeylen
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                            ( Case T-246/97)
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September                                           ( 97/C 331 /49 )
 1997 by Chantal Mertens, residing at Zellik ( Belgium ),
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer,                             (Language of the case: French)
 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 29 August
                                                                     1997 by Sonja Vermeylen, residing at Kapellen ( Belgium),
— annul the implicit decision, deemed to have been                   represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the
     adopted on 28 May 1997, rejecting the applicant's               Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal .
    complaint of 28 January 1997 contesting the decision
    not to include , her in the list of suitable candidates
    in competition COM/C/3/95 concerning activities as               The applicant claims that the Court should :
    a ' buildings/reception superintendent', which was
    notified on 13 January 1997,
                                                                     — annul the decision not to include the applicant's name
                                                                          in the list of officials most worthy of promotion to
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 grade C2, published in Administrative Notices No 956
                                                                          of 22 November 1996,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                         compensation in a sum to be determined on an
The applicant, a grade D2 official, complains that the                   equitable basis, amounting to not less than BFR
defendant failed to include her in the list of suitable                  500 000,
candidates drawn up in consequence of competition
COM/C/3/95 concerning activities as a ' buildings/
reception superintendent'. She states in that regard that            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
the nine candidates chosen by the selection board in the
competition included a person who did not fulfil the
seniority criteria laid down by the notice of competition as         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a condition of admissibility to the tests . The total marks
obtained by the applicant at the end of the tests was so
close to the minimum which she needed in order to be
                                                                     The applicant, a grade C3 official, contests the fact that
selected that the fact that a person who did not qualify for         her name was not included in the list of officials most
admission to the competition was included amongst the                worthy of promotion, published on 22 November 1996 in
successful candidates was necessarily enough in itself to            Administrative Notices No 956 . She states in that regard
affect her adversely.                                                that during the 1995 financial year her name was included
                                                                     in the list of officials found to be most worthy of
                                                                     promotion to grade C2, but she was not promoted at the
In support of her arguments, she pleads, first, infringement         end of the promotion procedure. Further, although in her
of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and of            staff report for the period 1991-1993 she was awarded six
Part II of the aforesaid notice of internal competition.             'excellent' and eight 'very good' assessments, for the
                                                                     period 1993-1995 she received only a draft staff report
                                                                     lacking any analytical assessments . On 20 March 1997 the
Second, the applicant pleads a breach by the appointing              applicant received a fresh draft of her staff report for
authority of its duty to have regard for the welfare and             1993-1995 , which did contain analytical assessments. The
interests of officials, in that the appointing authority and         applicant contested the assessments contained in that draft
the selection board in question failed to take all the steps         and requested that they be submitted to the appeal
necessary in order to make good the prejudice suffered by            assessor.
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97         1 EN [                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /25
In support of her claims, she pleads, first, breach of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in
that, according to a practice previously established by the
                                                                     By note of 21 January 1997 the applicant, a grade CI
defendant, the names of those officials most worthy of
                                                                     official, requested that her daughter, born on 14 October
promotion who are not promoted are entered once again                1968 , and her son, born on 6 June 1972, be treated as
in the list of officials most worthy of promotion in the
                                                                     dependent children. That request was granted in relation
following year. This gives rise to a legitimate expectation          to her son .
on the part of officials whose names appear in the list
that, if they are not promoted during the current year,
their names will, at the very least, be entered once again           The applicant pleads infringement of the obligation to
in the list for the following year. In that regard, the              provide a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the contested
applicant also pleads a breach of the obligation to provide          decision is based on an opinion of the Legal Service which
a statement of reasons .                                             was not communicated to the applicant, despite a formal
                                                                     request made by her lawyer.
The applicant further pleads irregularity in the promotion
procedure by reason of maladministration, inasmuch as,
faced with a report going back a long time, the defendant            The second plea alleges infringement of Article 2 (4 ) of
                                                                     Annex VII and a manifest error of assessment.
should, at the very least, have based its decision on the
most recent definitive staff report available. By virtue of
its failure to do so, the Commission was unable to carry
out a proper comparison of the merits of the officials
worthy of promotion.
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-209/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /51 )
Action brought on 8 September 1997 by Giovanna                                      (Language of the case: French)
     Lonuzzo-Murgante against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-247/97)
                                                                     By order of 10 September 1997, the President of the Third
                          ( 97/C 331/50 )                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                (Language of the case: French)                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                     Case T-209/96 :      Adam      Buick v.    Commission of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought                European Communities.
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 September 1997 by Maria Lonuzzo                    H OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
Murgante, residing in Strassen ( Luxembourg ), represented
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of T-145/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /52 )
— annul the decision rejecting the request that Miss
     Maria Lonuzzo be treated as a dependent child,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the Parliament to pay to the applicant all social
     welfare allowances connected with the status of her
                                                                     By order of 15 September 1997, the President of the Third
     daughter Giovanna as a dependent child, together with
     default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
     date(s ) when they became payable until the date when
                                                                      Case T-145/96 : Monika Kawicki v. European Parliament.
     they are paid,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              H OJ C 336, 9 . 11 . 1996 .


title: Case C-498/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by order of that court dated 10 June 2003, in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates Ltd, 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest Residential Care Homes) against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 21/24                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and the laws, regulations
                                                                           The prohibition on the sale of food supplements by mail order,
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           laid down in Paragraph 50(2) of the Gewerbeordnung, is a
      Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001
                                                                           measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction
      adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council
                                                                           on imports. It constitutes a greater obstacle to the sale of
      Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                           products from other Member States than to that of domestic
      regulations and administrative provisions relating to
                                                                           products. Such a prohibition on sales by mail order makes it
      the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
                                                                           necessary for traders from other Member States to establish a
      substances (1) and, in any event, by not communicating
                                                                           place of business in Austria or attract sales partners there
      them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed
                                                                           whereas Austrian traders in any case already have a fixed place
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
                                                                           of business in Austria, which can be advantageous to them in
                                                                           marketing the food supplements manufactured by them.
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          Austrian traders have the advantage of being able to use areas
                                                                           of the manufacturing premises or the premises on which their
                                                                           place of business is situated as a sales outlet also. This
                                                                           may represent a considerable cost advantage over foreign
                                                                           manufacturers as a result of the expenditure saved.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on               The aims of the protection of consumers against health risks
30 July 2002.                                                              and misrepresentation, which are put forward in order to
                                                                           justify such a prohibition, may be achieved by more lenient
                                                                           means which restrict the free movement of goods to a lesser
(1) OJ L 225 of 21 August 2001, p. 1.                                      degree. The Austrian measure is thus a disproportionate
                                                                           restriction on the free movement of goods.
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
                             lic of Austria
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                           Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by order of that court
                           (Case C-497/03)                                 dated 10 June 2003, in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates
                                                                           Ltd, 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest
                                                                           Residential Care Homes) against Commissioners of Cus-
                            (2004/C 21/44)                                                         toms and Excise
                                                                                (Case C-498/03)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
24 November 2003 by the Commission of the European                                                  (2004/C 21/45)
Communities, represented by J. C. Schieferer and B. Schima,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the VAT and Duties
1.    hold that, by imposing in Paragraph 50(2) of the Gewer-              Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 10 June 2003, which
      beordnung a prohibition on the sale of food supplements              was received at the Court Registry on 26 November 2003, for
      by mail order, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil          a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates Ltd,
      its obligations under Article 28 EC;                                 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest Residential
                                                                           Care Homes) and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                      the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/25
1.    Is it permissible to resort to other language versions of          The appellant claims that the Court should:
      the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to elucidate
      the meaning of the word ‘charitable’ in Article 13A.1 (g)          —     set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
      and (h), or must the word have the same meaning as in                    Instance of 17 September 2003 (1) and
      domestic law?
                                                                         —     1.    in Case T-309/01,
2.    If article 13A(1)(g) and (h) are to be interpreted as                          annul the Commission Decision of 14 August 2001
      applying to an organisation that is recognised as having                       (REC 4/00) in so far as it requires subsequent
      a social character, are they to be interpreted as applying                     accounting for import duties in the amount of
      to a profitmaking entity such as the Kingscrest Residential                    DEM 218 605,65, and order the Commission to pay
      Care Homes partnership?                                                        the costs of the proceedings;
3.    Are article 13A.1 (g) and (h) of the Directive to be                     2.    in Case T-239/02,
      interpreted as meaning that they confer on Member States
      a discretion to recognise for the purposes of those                            annul the Commission Decision of 5 March 2002
      provisions an organisation which is registered under the                       (REC 4/01) in so far as it requires subsequent
      Care Standards Act 2000 (or the Registered Homes Act                           accounting for import duties in the amount of
      1984 or the Children Act 1989) but which is not a body                         DEM 222 116,06, and order the Commission to pay
      governed by public law and does not have the status of a                       the costs of the proceedings.
      charity under the domestic law of the Member State
      concerned?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member        The appellants contest the judgment of the Court of First
    States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value           Instance on the following grounds:
    added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.77,
    p. 1).
                                                                         —     Breach of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 2913/92 (2). The Court of First Instance incorrectly
                                                                               based its ruling on a finding that the error made by the
                                                                               competent customs authority was detectable by the
                                                                               appellants. In the contested judgment, the Court of First
                                                                               Instance exaggerated the duty of care to be expected of
                                                                               the economic operators concerned. In addition, it failed
                                                                               to appreciate the complexity of the applicable rules.
Appeal brought on 26 November 2003 (fax: 25 November
2003) by Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Com-                        —     Flawed procedure in so far as the Court of First Instance
monfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH                             incorrectly declined to hear the witnesses named by the
against the judgment delivered on 17 September 2003 by                         appellants. Instead, it based its judgment on assumptions
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       detrimental to the appellants.
European Communities in Joined Cases T-309/01 and
T-239/02 between Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte
                                                                         (2) OJ L 302, p. 1.
mbH, and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-499/03 P)
                           (2004/C 21/46)
                                                                         Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
                                                                                guese Republic
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 September
2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                                       (Case C-500/03)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-309/01 and
T-239/02 between Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and                                                (2004/C 21/47)
Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH,
and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 26 November 2003 (fax: 25 November 2003) by Peter                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Commonfood Handelsge-                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
sellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, represented by Dr Klaus               26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
Landry and Dr Lothar Harings of Sozietät Graf von Westphalen             Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Bappert & Modest, Große Bleichen 21, D-20354, Hamburg.                   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-537/08: Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/29

         Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council
   (Case T-537/08)
   (2009/C 55/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd, Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd (China) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, G. Vallera, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008, maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1), with retroactive effect as of 29 December 2006, that is, the date on which imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Taiwan and Malaysia were subjected to provisional anti-dumping duties, which the Commission decided not to collect in its Decision No 2007/430/EC of 19 June 2007 (2);

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicants, China-based companies, seek annulment of Council Regulation No 893/2008 maintaining anti-dumping measures with respect to, inter alia, the imports of polyester staple fibres (PSF) manufactured by the applicants and originating in China. The applicants submit that the same treatment as was applied in Commission Decision No 2007/430/EC to the PSF originating in Taiwan and Malaysia should be applied to the PSF originating in China. Therefore, the anti-dumping duty should be repealed as of the same date, i.e. 29 December 2006, with respect to the PSF originating in China.
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicants are identical to those relied on in case T-536/08, Huvis v Council.

      (1)  OJ L 247, p. 1.

      (2)  2007/430/EC: Commission Decision of 19 June 2007 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed (OJ L 160, p. 30).


title: Case C-156/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 April 2014  — Tamoil Italia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 April 2014 — Tamoil Italia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare
   (Case C-156/14)
   2014/C 194/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Tamoil Italia SpA

      Respondent: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

      Question referred

   Do the European Union principles relating to the environment, laid down in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 (Articles 1 and 8(3) and recitals 13 and 24 in the preamble) — specifically, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority — preclude national legislation, such as the rules set out in Articles 244, 245 and 253 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006, which, in circumstances in which it is established that a site is contaminated and in which it is impossible to identify the polluter or to have that person adopt the restoration measures, do not permit the administrative authority to require the owner (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement the emergency safety and decontamination measures, merely attributing to that person financial liability limited to the value of the site once the decontamination measures have been carried out?

      (1)  Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56).


title: Case T-271/08 P: Appeal brought on 8 July 2008 by Stanislava Boudova and Others against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07, Boudova and Others v Commission

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/13

         Appeal brought on 8 July 2008 by Stanislava Boudova and Others against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07, Boudova and Others v Commission
   (Case T-271/08 P)
   (2008/C 260/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Stanislava Boudova (Howald, Luxembourg), Adovica (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Kuba (Konz, Germany), Puciriuss (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Strzelecka (Arlon, Belgium), Szyprowska (Berbourg, Luxembourg), Tibai (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Vaituleviciene (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellants

               —

               annul the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought by the appellants in the application at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellants seek the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07 Boudova and Others v Commission by which the CST dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action by which the appellants had sought the annulment of the decision rejecting their application for the revision of the classification in grade established by the decisions to recruit them.
   In support of their appeal, the appellants submit, first, that the CST infringed its obligation to state reasons in paragraph 38 of the contested order in so far as they were recruited to temporarily fill permanent posts included in the list of posts and not to replace officials or temporary servants who were unable for the time being to perform their duties, with the result that they were in actual fact — or should have been — recruited as temporary servants, or at the very least were in a position analogous to that of temporary servants.
   Secondly, the appellants maintain, as regards paragraphs 39 to 41 of the contested order, that, in not having discounted the possibility that the undertaking by the European Parliament, contained in a decision of 13 February 2006, to reclassify its employees — who were recruited as temporary servants before 1 May 2004 after having passed an internal or open competition published before 1 May 2004 and were subsequently appointed as officials in the same category but in a lower grade than that in which they would have been appointed before 1 May 2004 — stemmed from an obligation in the Staff Regulations, the CST infringed the case-law cited in paragraph 37 of the contested order.
   Furthermore, the appellants submit that the question whether there is an obligation stemming from the Staff Regulations is not a point of fact in respect of which proof should have been adduced by the appellants, but a point of law which the CST should have resolved and that a difference in the classification of officials whose factual and legal situations are identical or similar stemming from a position adopted subsequently by an institution other than that to which the appellants belong constitutes a material new fact which warrants a re-examination of the appellants' classification in grade.
   Thirdly, the appellants submit that the CST failed to have regard to the concept of excusable error in so far as the note in Administrative Notice No 59-2005, published by the Commission on 20 July 2005, was liable to mislead the appellants regarding the advisability of submitting a complaint against the classification decision within the period laid down in the Staff Regulations.
   Lastly, the appellants submit that the CST's reasoning infringes the provisions of the Rules of Procedure concerning the inadmissibility of actions.


title: Case F-28/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Simon v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/54

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Simon v Commission
      (Case F-28/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/70)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Anne-Claire Simon (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

         Subject matter of the case

      Application for annulment of the final decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1)

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2)

                  The parties shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015, p. 49.


title: Case T-59/10: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AMPLIDECT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Acquisition of distinctive character through use — Evidence)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)
   (Case T-59/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AMPLIDECT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Acquisition of distinctive character through use - Evidence)
   2012/C 13/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Geemarc Telecom International Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong) (represented by: G. Farrington, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Audioline GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, P. Lübbe and B. Allekotte, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2009 (Case R 913/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Audioline GmbH and Geemarc Telecom International Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Geemarc Telecom International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-84/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/36

         Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-84/09)
   2009/C 90/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: L. Ventrella, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of 8 December 2008, notified under document number C (2008) 7820 on 9 December 2008, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it makes certain corrections at Italy’s expense.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Italian Government contests before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Commission Decision C (2008) 7820 of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
   In particular, the Commission has excluded from Community financing under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF a number of categories of expenditure incurred by the Italian State in the financial years from 2003 to 2007.
   The action brought by Italy focuses in particular on three aspects of the contested decision:

               (i)

               its application of a number of one-off financial corrections in respect of campaigns to inform the public and promote agricultural products in the internal market (EC 94/2002) and in non-member countries (EC 2879/2000), for the financial years from 2004 to 2007, amounting in total to EUR 4 678 229,78;

               (ii)

               its application of one-off financial corrections in respect of production aid for olive oil and table olive production, for the financial years from 2003 to 2006, amounting in total to EUR 105 536 076,42;

               (iii)

               its application of financial corrections because of late payments and the overshooting of financial ceilings, amounting to EUR 12 020 178 for the financial year 2005 and EUR 44 567 569,37 for the financial year 2006.

         With regard to point (i), it is submitted in the application that the Commission’s position is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements (Article 253 EC), such breach consisting in the lack of an inter partes stage in the procedure, the absence of a preliminary investigation and failure to state sufficient reasons, as well as breach of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts.
   Among other things, in the present case, since it was not alleged that there was a total lack of controls or that the controls were wholly inefficient, the Commission’s application of a one-off 10% correction is wholly disproportionate and unjustified, thereby rendering the contested decision manifestly unlawful also from this point of view.
   With regard to point (ii), the Commission applied one-off financial corrections (10% and 5%) in respect of the financial years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, amounting in total to EUR 105 536 076,42.
   It is submitted in the application on this point that the decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements (article 253 EC) in the form of failure to state sufficient reasons, breach of the principle of proportionality and infringement of Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation No 2366/98 (original version and the version as amended by Regulation No 1780/03). In particular, the Italian Government considers, inter alia, that the Commission did not give due consideration — and fails to give adequate reasons for this — to the explanations furnished from time to time by the Italian authorities, especially regarding the general approach of the penalty system in Italy and the full accomplishment of the geographical information system (GIS) for olive cultivation. In any case, the one-off amount of the penalty imposed by the Commission is unjustified and manifestly disproportionate in that, according to the Italian Government, even if it were to be shown that there had been a total failure to comply with the Community rules, the risk would not in any event exceed EUR 22 504 075,39.
   As regards point (iii), the Commission — on grounds which are inappropriate, insufficient and the product of circular reasoning — adopted the view that it could not accept the justifications offered by the Italian State in the course of the procedure and before the Dispute Settlement Body, ‘because the 4% reserve made available under Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006) should have been sufficient for bringing legal actions, for dealing with controversial cases and for introducing additional controls’. In that connection, the Italian Government states that the 4% limit is not to be understood as absolute: in view of the fact that its purpose is to protect the Community’s finances from fraud, it can be exceeded whenever — as in the present case — there are sound reasons for fearing that there is a risk of fraud involving more than 4%. That is the only interpretation of that rule that is consistent with the rationale underlying it.


title: Case F-125/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits of officials in different services — Application for damages — Admissibility — Reasonable period — Lawyers' fees — Pre-litigation procedure — Non-material harm)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission
   (Case F-125/05) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits of officials in different services - Application for damages - Admissibility - Reasonable period - Lawyers' fees - Pre-litigation procedure - Non-material harm)
   (2007/C 56/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   The applicant is seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decisions of 1 April 2005 and 7 October 2005, dismissing its applications for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered under the 1998 and 1999 promotion procedures and, secondly, an order that the defendant is to pay damages valued on an equitable basis at EUR 72 000 in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Tsarnavas EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm;

               2.

               dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Tsarnavas;

               4.

               orders Mr Tsarnavas to bear two thirds of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 54.


title: Case C-358/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio, (District Court, Brescia, Second Chamber [Liquidations]) by order of 2 September 1999 in the case of T.M.A. Tecnologie Meccaniche Avanzate s.r.l. and Federchemicals s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
4.12.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 352/27
(3) Article 1 of Regulation No 1404/99, although failing to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      fix the derived intervention price for white sugar for Italy,        di Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio (Second Chamber,
      confirmed it, and also the relevant quantities, for the              [Liquidations]) by order of 2 September 1999 in the case
      United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Spain.                of Autogolf s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze, (Ministry
                                                                                of Finance)
      Not being apprised of the reasons which motivated the                                          (Case C-359/99)
      withholding of an intervention price for Italy or of those
      for doing so for the other Member States, the Italian                                          (1999/C 352/43)
      Government considers that there has been a breach of the
      principle of equality and an instance of unequal treatment.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
                                                                           Seconda Sezione Stralcio, of 2 September 1999, received at
(1) OJ 1999 L 164, p. 15.                                                  the Court Registry on 24 September 1999, for a preliminary
(2) OJ 1999 L 164, p. 13.                                                  ruling in the case of Autogolf s.r.l. against Ministero delle
(3) OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4.                                                   Finanze on the following questions:
                                                                           Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998
                                                                           (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)
                                                                           compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
                                                                           and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
                                                                           concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch
                                                                           as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
                                                                           annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for
                                                                           each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
                                                                           the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private
Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio, (District Court, Brescia,               limited companies?
Second Chamber [Liquidations]) by order of 2 September
1999 in the case of T.M.A. Tecnologie Meccaniche Avanza-
te s.r.l. and Federchemicals s.r.l. against Ministero delle                Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
                               Finanze                                     munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums
                                                                           to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for
                                                                           by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal
                          (Case C-358/99)                                  rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
                                                                           (2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
                                                                           by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of
                          (1999/C 352/42)                                  26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
Seconda Sezione Stralcio, of 2 September 1999, received at
the Court Registry on 24 September 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of T.M.A. Tecnologie Meccaniche Avanzate
s.r.l. and Federchemicals s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze
on the following question:
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                 Brescia, Terza Seconda Sezione Civile (District Court,
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10              Brescia, Third Civil Chamber) by order of 2 September
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969                 1999 in the case of Union Factor s.p.a. and Others, against
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                   Ministero delle Finanze
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of                                             (Case C-360/99)
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                                           (1999/C 352/44)
limited companies?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
                                                                           Terza Sezione Civile, of 2 September 1999, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 24 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Union Factor s.p.a. and Others against Ministero
                                                                           delle Finanze on the following questions:


title: Case F-53/13: Action brought on 27 May 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/20

         Action brought on 27 May 2013 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-53/13)
   2013/C 215/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 in the 2012 promotion procedure.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 in the 2012 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case T-376/12: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014  — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Dried grapes — Wine — Expenditure incurred by Greece — One-off financial correction — Method of calculating — Nature of the procedure for clearance of accounts — Link with expenditure financed by the European Union)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-376/12) (1)

   ((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Dried grapes - Wine - Expenditure incurred by Greece - One-off financial correction - Method of calculating - Nature of the procedure for clearance of accounts - Link with expenditure financed by the European Union))
   2014/C 292/44
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83), in so far as that decision concerns the dried grapes sector, in respect of financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the wine sector of the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a one-off financial correction for the wine sector;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case C-429/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV
   (Case C-429/07)
   (2007/C 297/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

      Defendant: X BV
   Question referred
   Is the Commission competent, under Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, to submit, on its own initiative, written observations in proceedings relating to the deductibility from the (taxable) profit realised by the party concerned in 2002 of a fine for infringement of Community competition law, which was imposed by the Commission on X KG and (partially) passed on to the party concerned?


title: Case C-344/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie — Republic of Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Tomasz Rubach (Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Species listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 — Evidence of lawful acquisition of specimens of those species — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie — Republic of Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Tomasz Rubach
   (Case C-344/08) (1)

   (Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Species listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - Evidence of lawful acquisition of specimens of those species - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence)
   2009/C 220/22
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie

      Party involved in the criminal prosecution in the main proceedings

   Tomasz Rubach

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997 L 61, p. 1) — Notion of ‘proof’ that specimens of the species listed in Annex B were lawfully acquired

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of criminal proceedings brought against a person accused of having infringed that provision, any type of evidence accepted under the procedural law of the Member State concerned in similar proceedings is in principle admissible for the purpose of establishing whether specimens of animal species listed in Annex B to that regulation were lawfully acquired. In the light also of the principle of the presumption of innocence, such a person may adduce any such evidence to prove that those specimens came lawfully into his possession in accordance with the conditions laid down in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-106/08: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-106/08) (1)

   2009/C 180/63

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-194/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2015 — Véronique Baudinet and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2015 — Véronique Baudinet and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino
   (Case C-194/15)
   (2015/C 245/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Véronique Baudinet, Adrien Boyer, Pauline Boyer, Edouard Boyer

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino

      Question referred

   Do Articles 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State under which, when a resident of that State, a shareholder in a company established in another Member State, receives dividends taxed in both States, that double taxation is not remedied by the grant in the State of residence of a tax credit at least equal to the amount of tax paid in the State of the distributing company?


title: Case T-42/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  12 May 2006  — Gollnisch v Parliament (Application for Interim measures — Act of the Parliament — Defence of immunity of a Member of Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Admissible)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/27

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 May 2006 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-42/06 R)
   (Application for Interim measures - Act of the Parliament - Defence of immunity of a Member of Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Admissible)
   (2006/C 165/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented: by W. de Saint Just, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by:H. Krück, C. Karamarcos and A. Padowska, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of the European Parliament's Decision of 13 December 2005 not to defend the immunity and privileges of Mr. Gollnisch.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-568/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — Kokomarina v OHIM — Euro Shoe Unie (interdit de me gronder I D M G)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/19

         Action brought on 26 October 2011 — Kokomarina v OHIM — Euro Shoe Unie (interdit de me gronder I D M G)
   (Case T-568/11)
   2012/C 13/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kokomarina (Concarneau, France) (represented by: C. Charrière-Bournazel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euro Shoe Unie NV (Beringen, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare Kokomarina’s action to be admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 July 2011 in Case R 1814/2010-1;

               —

               dismiss the opposition brought by EURO SHOE UNIE NV against the application for registration as a Community trade mark of Kokomarina’s mark ‘I D M G — interdit de me gronder’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘interdit de me gronder I D M G’ for goods in class 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Euro Shoe Unie NV.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux word mark ‘DMG’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Lack of use of the opposed mark and no likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-623/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning two national competition procedures — Documents submitted to the Commission by a national authority within the framework of cooperation provided for by EU law — Refusal of access — Exception related to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception related to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — No obligation for the Institution concerned to carry out a specific and individual examination of the content of the documents concerned in the request for access when the investigation at issue is definitively closed — No need for an organisational measure in the procedure requesting the documents at issue — Failure to take account of the special situation of the applicant)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission
   (Case T-623/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning two national competition procedures - Documents submitted to the Commission by a national authority within the framework of cooperation provided for by EU law - Refusal of access - Exception related to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception related to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - No obligation for the Institution concerned to carry out a specific and individual examination of the content of the documents concerned in the request for access when the investigation at issue is definitively closed - No need for an organisational measure in the procedure requesting the documents at issue - Failure to take account of the special situation of the applicant))
   (2015/C 213/55)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: The Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, K. Petersen and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission decision of 18 September 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents concerning the exchange of correspondence between the Commission and the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC, Spanish national competition commission), as regards two procedures opened by the latter.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-445/07 P and C-455/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ente per le Ville Vesuviane (C-445/07 P), Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities (C-455/07 P) (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Development of infrastructure for the expansion of tourism in Regione Campania (Italy) — Closure of Community financial assistance — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Local or regional entity — Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ente per le Ville Vesuviane (C-445/07 P), Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities (C-455/07 P)
   (Joined Cases C-445/07 P and C-455/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Development of infrastructure for the expansion of tourism in Regione Campania (Italy) - Closure of Community financial assistance - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Local or regional entity - Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity)
   2009/C 267/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn, Agent, A. Dal Ferro, avvocato) (C-445/07 P), Ente per le Ville Vesuviane (represented by: E. Soprano, avvocato) (C-455/07 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ente per le Ville Vesuviane (represented by: E. Soprano, avvocato) (C-455/07 P), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn, Agent, A. Dal Ferro, avvocato) (C-445/07 P)

      Re

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission (T-189/02) by which the Court rejected the action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2002) 810111 of 13 March 2002 ending financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the form of investment in infrastructure in Campania (Italy) relating to an integrated scheme of development of three Vesuvian villas for the purposes of tourism (ERDF No 86/05/04/054).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 July 2007 in Case T-189/02 Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission, inasmuch as it declared admissible Ente per le Ville Vesuviane’s action for annulment of Commission Decision D (2002) 810111 of 13 March 2002, closing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the form of investment in infrastructure in Campania (Italy) relating to an integrated scheme for the development of three Vesuvian villas for the purposes of tourism;

               2.

               Dismisses Ente per le Ville Vesuviane’s action for annulment of the said decision as inadmissible;

               3.

               Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal brought by Ente per le Ville Vesuviane;

               4.

               Orders Ente per le Ville Vesuviane to pay the costs of the proceedings before the present Court and also those connected with the procedure at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 08.12.2007.