title: Case T-5/01: Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 95/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.3.2001
Infringement of the right to put forward a proper defence: if           Pleas in law and main arguments
an undertaking on which the Commission has wrongly
imposed a fine is not entitled to claim lost interest, it is in
effect not in a position to mount a full defence against                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
decisions wrongly addressed to it by the Commission.                    T-2/01.
Unjustified enrichment.
Since there exists no generally applicable rate of interest, the
applicant bases its calculation of the interest on the percentage
charged by the Commission when fixing the amount to be
paid by undertakings which have delayed paying a justified
                                                                        Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale
fine.
                                                                        Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-5/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse
Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 January 2001 by the Istituto
                          (Case T-3/01)                                 Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and
                                                                        Others, represented by Giovanni Pesce and Filippo Brunetti,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 95/31)
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        —     uphold the application and order the defendant to pay
                                                                              the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Neder-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
landse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV, established at ’s-Hertogen-
bosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel and
R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in          The present application is directed against the decision con-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                 tained in the letter dated 27 October 2000 (D13118), signed
                                                                        by the Director General of the European Commission, Direc-
                                                                        torate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, by which
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the applicant consortium of undertakings was informed that
                                                                        they had been excluded from the tendering procedure relating
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000               to the information campaign on food safety in Member States
      refusing to pay ENCI interest on the fine improperly              for 2000 and 2001.
      imposed on it;
                                                                        The rejection at issue is based on the lack of evidence of:
—     order the Commission to pay to ENCI interest at the rate
      of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on                 —     at least three years’ of experience in cooperation with a
      7 316 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to                        consumer organisation; and
      23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
      2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to           —     ability to involve the consumer organisations in the
      ENCI;                                                                   campaign.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            In support of its arguments, the applicant consortium alleges:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.3.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 95/17
—    Error of fact and absolute lack of statement of reasons.           —     condemn the Commission to pay damages provisionally
     First, the need to involve consumer organisations was not                evaluated at 1 Euro for the prejudice suffered;
     provided for in the invitation to tender and, secondly,
     evidence of the requisite experience had been submitted.           —     condemn the Commission to pay the costs.
—    Internal inconsistency of the decision and misuse of
     powers. In a communication dated 14 September 2000,                Pleas in law and main arguments
     sent by the Commission to the participants in the
     tendering procedure, it was stated that not only had the
                                                                        The applicant entered into a three-year contract of employ-
     applicant consortium’s offer been selected, that is to say
                                                                        ment with the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts
     its tender been accepted, it had also been awarded the             of Employment (AECCE), which contract was renewable for a
     contract in which it was interested.
                                                                        further year.
—    Breach of the terms of the tender and invalidity on                Despite allegedly favourable opinions expressed in the appli-
     grounds of incompetence. The applicants state in this              cant’s last performance report, the AECCE decided only to
     respect that the Director General who signed the contest-          extend the applicant’s contract for six months.
     ed decision was not, under the terms of the tender, the
     person competent to carry out all the communications
     relating to the tendering procedure and to adopt the               The applicant seeks the annulment of this decision and submits
     relevant measures, and that the contested letter confuses          that the AECCE’s decision violated the obligation to state
     selection criteria, for the purposes of participating in the       reasons contained in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. As all
     tendering procedure, and grounds for exclusion from the            three-year contracts of temporary staff were allegedly extended,
     tendering procedure itself.                                        except for the one of the applicant, a limit of six months
                                                                        for the extension of the applicant’s contract constitutes an
                                                                        infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and goes
                                                                        clearly against the interest of the service.
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the decision infringes
                                                                        Article 26 of the Staff Regulation and violates his rights to
                                                                        defence, and that it constitutes a misuse of powers.
Action brought on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-7/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker
                                                                                against the European Court of Auditors
                         (2001/C 95/33)
                                                                                (Case T-9/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/34)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                (Language of the case: German)
European Communities on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
(Swan Residence, rue Ph. Baucq, 100, Belgium), represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of De Backer, Brussels.            An action against the European Court of Auditors was brought
                                                                        before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker, of Luxembourg,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             represented by Roy Nathan, lawyer.
—    annul the decision of the Commission of 22 January                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     2000 extending the Appellant’s contract of employment
     only until 30 July 2000, so for a further period limited to        —     order the defendant to withdraw its decision of 13 No-
     six months, and, if necessary, annul the decision of the                 vember 2000;
     Commission of 6 October 2000 rejecting the Appellant’s
     complaint;                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 1997 in Case C-144/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Office National des Pensions (ONP) v. Maria Cirotti (Social security - Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
22 . 11 . 97           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 357/5
1 . dismisses the application;                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
2 . orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
3 . orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Commission to                 in Case C- 144/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     bear their own costs .                                            the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles ): Office National des
                                                                                Pensions ( ONP) v. Maria Cirotti (')
(') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                       (Social security — Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1408/71 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/09 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 2 October 1997
in Case C-122/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Stephen Austin Saldanha and                           published in the European Court Reports)
    MTS Securities Corporation v. Hiross Holding AG ( 1 )
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of
nationality — Dual nationality — Scope of application of               In Case C- 144/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                the Treaty — Security for costs)                       of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles
                                                                       ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) for a preliminary ruling
                            ( 97/C 357/08 )
                                                                       in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                       Office National des Pensions ( ONP) and Maria Cirotti —
                (Language of the case: German)                         on the interpretation of Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation
                                                                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
           published in the European Court Reports)                    families moving within the Community ( OJ, English
                                                                       Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ), as amended and
In Case C-122/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Austrian              2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) — the Court
                                                                       ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
Supreme Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Stephen
                                                                       of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), P. J. G.
                                                                       Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.
Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation and
Hiross Holding AG — on the interpretation of the first                 Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has           Articles 46 and 51 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
given a judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has                    of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of
ruled :                                                                social security schemes to employed persons, to self
                                                                       employed persons and to members of their families
The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be              moving within the Community, as amended and updated
construed as precluding a Member State from requiring                  by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983,
provision of security for costs by a national of another               must be interpreted as precluding the share of an
Member State who is also a national of a non-member                    employed person 's old-age pension granted to that
country, in which he is resident, where that national, who             person 's separated spouse under the legislation of a
is not resident and has no assets in the first Member State,           Member State from being recalculated by reference to
                                                                       alterations arising from general economic and social
has brought proceedings before one of its civil courts in
his capacity as a shareholder against a company                        developments in an invalidity benefit received by that
established in that Member State, if such a requirement is             separated spouse under the legislation of another Member
                                                                       State.
not imposed on its own nationals who are not resident
and have no assets there.
                                                                        (') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
(') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case C-144/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2010 — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2010 — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch
   (Case C-144/10)
   2010/C 148/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Kammergericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

      Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the scope of Article 22(2) 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 (1) also extend to proceedings in which a company or legal person objects, with regard to a claim made against it stemming from a legal transaction, that decisions of its organs which led to the conclusion of the legal transaction are ineffective as a result of infringements of its articles of association?

               2.

               If the question under (1) is answered in the affirmative, is Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 also applicable to legal persons governed by public law in so far as the effectiveness of the decisions of its organs are subject to review by civil courts?

               3.

               If the question under (2) is answered in the affirmative, is the court of the Member State last seised in legal proceedings required to stay the proceedings pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 even if it is claimed that, as a result of a decision of the organs of one of the parties which is ineffective under its articles of association, an agreement conferring jurisdiction is likewise ineffective?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-405/16: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/56

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)
   (Case T-405/16) (1)

   (2017/C 283/88)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-372/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia
   (Case C-372/13)
   2014/C 78/02
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE

      Defendant: SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia
   The Court (Third Chamber) ruled by reasoned order of 30 January 2014.


title: Case T-196/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2009 — TerreStar Europe v Commission (Application for interim measures — Decision on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services — Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief — No urgency)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/18

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2009 — TerreStar Europe v Commission
   (Case T-196/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Decision on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services - Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief - No urgency)
   2009/C 233/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TerreStar Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Olofsson, lawyer and J. Killick, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, A. Nijenhuis, K. Platteau and D. Van Liedekerke, lawyers)

      Re:

   In essence, application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2002 in Case T-197/01: Groupement d'intérêt de produits agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 — Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/23
of the European Communities (Agents: N. Niejahr, K. Fitch                   Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet
and B. Wägenbaur) — application for partial annulment of                    SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new
additive preparations, the prolongation of provisional author-                                        (Case T-177/02)
isations and the ten year authorisation of an additive in
feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 25) — the Court of First
                                                                                (2002/C 233/44)
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 June 2002, the operative part of which                                            (Language of the case: French)
provides as follows:
1.    There is no need to rule in the present action.
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-
( 1) OJ 2001 C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                           Vezinhet SA, established in Cavaillon (France), represented by
                                                                            Béatrice Favarel-Veidig, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the following amounts to
                          of 19 June 2002                                         Malagutti-Vezinhet:
in Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits                                —     the sum of FRF 222 540,00 (EUR 33 926,00) as
agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the                                  compensation for loss incurred by that company;
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                —     the sum of FRF 1 943 413,56 (EUR 296 271,48) as
(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001                                    compensation for loss of profits in the British
— Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest                                      market; if the Court of First Instance considers the
                           inadmissibility)                                             claim for loss of profits to be insufficiently proven,
                                                                                it is requested to award the applicant the aforemen-
                          (2002/C 233/43)                                               tioned sum in respect of the loss of a chance to
                                                                                retain its previously established levels of business;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                —     the sum of FRF 2 013 455,16 (EUR 306 949,26) as
                                                                                compensation for harm caused to the company’s
In Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits agricoles                            reputation with European and, in particular, British
de la Martinique (GIPAM), whose registered office is at Ducos                           distributors.
(France), represented by A. Lorang, P. Leroyer Gravet and
H. Mazingue, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Bordes and L. Visaggio) — application for annul-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation
(EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing                   The applicant exports fruit and vegetables into, inter alia, the
bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6) — the                      English market. In September 2001, the Icelandic health
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                        authorities informed the Commission of the existence of
J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,               pesticide residues in excess of the prescribed maximum level.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2002,
                                                                            On the basis of that information, the Commission sent a
in which it:                                                                notification, in the framework of the rapid alert system,
                                                                            concerning dicofol residues in apples from France via the
1.    dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                 Netherlands. In a second notification, and subsequent notifi-
                                                                            cations, the applicant was expressly named as the exporter.
2.    orders the applicant to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                The applicant claims that, by taking that action, the Com-
                                                                            mission acted wrongfully, thereby causing the applicant to
                                                                            suffer damage.


title: Case C-505/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Antje Wilke v Land Berlin

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Antje Wilke v Land Berlin
   (Case C-505/12)
   2013/C 26/57
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Antje Wilke

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land civil servants?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?

               6.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative: does it follow from the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law that a transitional law — under which existing civil servants are placed on a step of the new system solely according to the amount of the basic pay they attained under the old (discriminatory) law on remuneration on the transition date, and according to which further progression to higher steps is thereupon calculated solely according to the periods of experience attained since the entry into force of the transitional law, irrespective of the civil servant’s absolute period of experience — constitutes a perpetuation of the existing age discrimination, continuing until the highest pay step is reached in each case?

               7.

               If Question 6 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law conflict with a justification of this unrestricted, continuing discrimination by the legislative aim whereby the transitional law is to protect not (only) the acquired rights existing on the transition date but (also) the expectation of the lifetime income in the respective pay grade that was forecast to be paid under the old law on remuneration?
               Can the continuing discrimination against existing civil servants be justified by the fact that the regulatory alternative (individual placement also of existing civil servants according to periods of experience) would involve increased administrative expenditure?

               8.

               If such justification is rejected in Question 7: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, until a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has been implemented also for existing civil servants, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective and continuing remuneration of existing civil servants at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to state liability under European Union law?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-601/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 November 2015 — J.N.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 November 2015 — J.N.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
   (Case C-601/15)
   (2016/C 038/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: J.N.

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

      Question referred

   Is Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96) valid in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1):

               1.

               in a situation where a third-country national has been detained pursuant to Article 8(3)(e) of that directive and, under Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60), has the right to remain in a Member State until a decision on his asylum application has been made at first instance, and

               2.

               in view of the Explanation (OJ 2007 C 303, p. [19]) that the limitations which may legitimately be imposed on the rights in Article 6 of the Charter may not exceed those permitted by the European Convention on Human Rights in the wording of its Article 5[(1)](f), and in the light of the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights of the latter provision in, inter alia, the judgment of 22 September 2015 in Nabil and Others v Hungary, 62116/12, according to which the detention of an asylum-seeker is contrary to the aforementioned Article 5(1)(f) if such detention was not imposed with a view to removal?


C 84/54               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.4.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/01 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-119/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/95)                                                    (2002/C 84/98)
By order of 23 October 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-48/01: Commission of the
                                                                  from the register of Case C-119/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                  European Communities v Finland.
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and
                           C-52/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-244/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/96)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/99)
By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and C-52/01:            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Beta Television          from the register of Case C-244/01: Commission of the
SpA (Videomusic/TMC2) and Internazionale SpA.                     European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-118/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-336/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/100)
By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-118/01: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-336/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case T-12/05: Action brought on 7 January 2005 by TV Danmark A/S and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/23

         Action brought on 7 January 2005 by TV Danmark A/S and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-12/05)
   (2005/C 69/42)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 January 2005 by TV Danmark A/S, Skovlunde, (Denmark) and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., Hounslow (United Kingdom) represented by D. Vandermeersch, T. Müller-Ibold, K. Nordlander and H. Peytz, lawyers with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the European Commission of 6 October 2004 in the State aid matter N 313/2004 - Denmark Recapitalisation of TV2/Danmark A/S;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees, costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision relates to an injection of capital and a conversion of a State loan into equity by the Danish Government for the benefit of TV2/Danmark A/S, which it considered necessary to avoid the bankruptcy of TV2 resulting from the repayment of amounts of illegal State aid ordered by the Commission in a decision of 19 May 2004 (1) establishing the Government's overcompensation of TV2's public service cost. In the contested decision, the Commission held that State aid might be involved in the Government's recapitalisation of TV2, but that if so it would be compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC.
   The applicants submit that in adopting the decision, the Commission infringed Articles 86(2), 87(1), 88(2) and 253 EC, the Protocol annexed to the EC Treaty on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2), and the Communication from the Commission on the application of the State aid rules to public service broadcasting (3).
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Articles 87(1), 88(3) and 86(2) EC, when, after having found that the private investor principle, as applied to long-term investment, could not be invoked given the uncertainty surrounding the planned privatisation of TV2, it failed to establish and to quantify the State aid.
   Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Article 86(2) EC, the Protocol, and the Broadcasting Communication when it based itself on a definition of a service of a general economic interest which is too broad, too imprecisely worded and creates a distortion of competition and an effect on trade contrary to Article 86(2) EC. The applicants also claim that the Commission failed to establish that compliance with the Recovery Decision without the subsequent recapitalisation would obstruct TV2 in the performance of its public service tasks.
   According to the applicants, the Commission furthermore failed to establish that the development of trade would not be affected by the recapitalisation to such an extent as is contrary to the interest of the Community.
   Thirdly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Article 86(2) EC, the Protocol, and the Broadcasting Communication when it failed to establish TV2's net public service costs which could be funded by the State and committed manifest errors of assessment when applying the proportionality test.
   Fourthly, the applicants submit that the contested decision infringes Articles 87 and 88 EC and the right to equal treatment as it perpetuates, contrary to the Commission's State aid recovery policy, the unlawful advantage of the illegal aid and the resulting distortion of competition.
   Fifthly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation when it decided not to open the formal investigation procedure giving interested third parties the opportunity to be heard.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 253 EC when it failed to properly state its reasons for adopting the contested decision.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 in case C 2/2003 - State funding of TV2/Denmark

      (2)  OJ L 83, p. 1

      (3)  OJ 2001 C 320, p. 5


title: Case C-584/10 P: Appeal brought on 13th December 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30th September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/9

         Appeal brought on 13th December 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30th September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
   (Case C-584/10 P)
   2011/C 72/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, S. Boelaert, E. Paasivirta, and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Council of the European Union, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside, in whole, the contested judgment;

               —

               Dismiss Yassin Abdullah Kadi's application for the annulment of Commission adopted Regulation No 1190/2008 (1) insofar as it concerns him, as unfounded;

               —

               Order that Yassin Abdullah Kadi pays the Commission's costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the General Court's findings are vitiated by errors of law, as they are based on a legally erroneous standard for judicial review. The pleas of the Commission are as follows:
   1.   Pleas relating to the General Court's findings on the applicable standard of judicial review: The Commission submits that the standard of judicial review adopted by the General Court is legally erroneous because the Court of Justice has not settled the precise standard of judicial review applicable to this case and because the particular standard of judicial review adopted by the General Court cannot be required from the EU.
   2.   Pleas relating to the General Court's findings on the infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection and to the infringement of the principle of proportionality: The Commission argues that the General Court erroneously held that the procedures applied by the Commission did not fulfil the fundamental rights requirements for this type of restrictive measures regime; that the GC erroneously dismissed the Commission's argument regarding the domestic proceedings brought by Mr Kadi in the United States; and that the GC erroneously dismissed the Commission's arguments regarding the administrative review and re-examination procedures established pursuant to UNSC Resolutions 1822(2008) and 1904(2009) – including the Focal Point procedure and the Office of the Ombudsperson.

      (1)  OJ L 322, p. 25


title: Case T-369/06: Action brought on 7 December 2006 — Holland Malt v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/23

         Action brought on 7 December 2006 — Holland Malt v Commission
   (Case T-369/06)
   (2007/C 42/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Holland Malt BV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and D. Mes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in full or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(200) 4196 final (1) of 26 September 2006 by which the Commission declared that a subsidy that the Netherlands conditionally granted to the applicant constitutes State aid that is incompatible with the common market.
   The applicant contests that the Commission was entitled to find that the subsidy constituted State aid incompatible with the common market and submits that the Commission committed infringements of Article 87 EC and a number of principles of Community law. These infringements concern the following:

               1)

               Infringement of Article 87(1) EC related to a failure to establish that the subsidy constituted State aid in the sense of this provision and a misconstruction and misapplication of Community case law on this point;

               2)

               Infringement of Article 87(3) EC related to:

                           a)

                           A misconstruction and misapplication of the Community Guidelines (2) on State aid in the agriculture sector;

                           b)

                           A failure to properly balance the beneficial effects of the subsidy and its impact on trading conditions inside the Community;

                           c)

                           A failure to properly assess and establish the impact of the subsidy on capacities in the malt industry;

                           d)

                           A failure to take account of events and developments that occurred between the moment the Dutch government decided to conditionally grant the subsidy and the moment the Commission adopted the contested decision;

               3)

               Infringement of the principle of sound administration related to a failure to duly investigate all aspects and interests involved in the granting of the subsidy, including events and developments that occurred between the moment the Dutch government decided to conditionally grant the subsidy and the moment the Commission adopted its decision.

               4)

               Infringement of the duty to state reasons as laid down in Article 253 EC.

      (1)  C 14/2005 (ex N 149/2004) Holland Malt BV.

      (2)  Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2).


title: Case C-360/05: Action brought on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/14

         Action brought on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-360/05)
   (2005/C 281/28)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Gross and M. Velardo, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EEC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the Italian State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 28(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC, which concerns restructuring of the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, provides:
   ‘Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 31 December 2003. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.’
   The Italian State does not appear to have adopted the implementing measures provided for by Article 28(1), and, in any event, has not informed the Commission thereof or provided any evidence which permits the inference that the necessary measures have been adopted. Under those circumstances, the Italian State is to be regarded as having failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

      (1)  OJ L 283 of 31.10. 2003, p. 51.


title: Case C-100/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) — Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL — Community and national figurative and word marks BOTOX — Declaration of invalidity — Relative grounds for refusal — Damage to reputation)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan Inc.
   (Case C-100/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL - Community and national figurative and word marks BOTOX - Declaration of invalidity - Relative grounds for refusal - Damage to reputation)
   2012/C 194/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Allergan Inc. (represented by: F. Clark, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-345/08 and T-357/08 Rubinstein and l’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (Botolist and Botocyl), by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘BOTOLIST’ for goods classified in Class 3, against Decision R 863/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 May 2008, which set aside the decision of the Cancellation Division rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark, submitted by the proprietor of the Community and national figurative and word marks ‘BOTOX’ for goods classified in Classes 5 and 16 and services classified in Class 42 — Interpretation and application of Art. 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Art. 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Relative grounds for refusal — Damage to reputation — Interpretation and application of Art. 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Art. 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC and L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-392/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Dumitru Marcu v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 199(1)(c) — No VAT registration — Reverse charge — Hypothetical nature of the question referred — Inadmissibility of the question referred)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Dumitru Marcu v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
   (Case C-392/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 199(1)(c) - No VAT registration - Reverse charge - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility of the question referred))
   (2017/C 283/14)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dumitru Marcu

      Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

      Operative part of the judgment

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


title: Case T-827/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014  — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/21

         Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-827/14)
   (2015/C 096/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Apel and D. Schroeder, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 in Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom, as amended by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed on the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence in the determination of abusive conduct

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the Commission did not properly establish a refusal to supply, since it did not examine the indispensability of the relevant upstream input.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the Commission did not grant the applicant the right to be heard on the facts and methods by which it established a margin squeeze of the undertaking concerned.

                           —

                           Furthermore, it is submitted that the Commission used a defective methodology for the margin squeeze and incorrectly calculated the long-term average marginal cost.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the determination of the duration of the infringement

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission should not have let the infringement begin as early as the publication of the reference offer and in any event should not have included the year 2005 in the duration of the infringement.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the attribution of the infringement to the applicant, since the Commission did not prove the actual exercise of decisive influence of the applicant over the undertaking concerned

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission should not have attributed the anticompetitive conduct of the undertaking concerned to the applicant, since the applicant and that undertaking did not form a single economic entity.

                           —

                           In particular, the Commission did not prove that the applicant actually exercised decisive influence over the undertaking concerned. In addition, the applicant was unaware of the alleged abusive conduct of the undertaking concerned.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that, in its attempt to prove the actual exercise of decisive influence, the Commission, when interpreting the facts, infringed, in particular, the presumption of innocence.

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Commission did not prove that the alleged exercise of decisive influence was considerable.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Errors of law owing to the imposition of a separate fine on the applicant

                           —

                           In the Commission’s view, the undertaking concerned and the applicant formed part of the same undertaking during the entire duration of the infringement and at the time of the setting of the fine, but also already at the time of the applicant’s infringement considered for repeated infringement, which was sanctioned by the Commission in 2003. The Commission therefore should not have imposed a separate fine on the applicant, since the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence concerns only the undertaking as such and not the legal persons belonging to it.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in fixing the amount of the fine

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that, in calculating the basic amount, the Commission should not have used the turnover of the undertaking concerned with the concerned products in 2010, but should have used the average annual turnover for the years 2005 — 2010.

                           —

                           In addition, under no circumstances should the Commission have included the year 2005 when taking account of the duration of the infringement.


title: Case C-378/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2014  — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste management — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum payment and penalty payment)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-378/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Waste management - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum payment and penalty payment))
   (2015/C 046/13)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent, assisted by V. Liogkas, technical expert)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-502/03, EU:C:2005:592), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the judgment in Commission v Greece (EU:C:2005:592) has been complied with, in the event that the failure to fulfil obligations established in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the present judgment persists until that day, a six-monthly penalty payment to be calculated, as regards the first six-month period following delivery of the present judgment, at the end of that period, on the basis of an initial amount set at EUR 1 4 5 20  000, from which the sum of EUR 40  000 is to be deducted in respect of each uncontrolled waste disposal site, covered by the infringement established, that has by then been closed down or cleaned up since 13 May 2014, and the sum of EUR 80  000 is to be deducted in respect of each such site that has by then been both closed down and cleaned up. The penalty payment due in respect of every six-month period thereafter is to be calculated, at the end of each such period, on the basis of the amount of the penalty payment set for the preceding six-month period, from which the same deductions are to be made in respect of the closing down and/or cleaning up of sites, covered by the failure to fulfil obligations established, effected during the six-month period in question;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, the lump sum of EUR 10 million;

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-394/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/38/EEC — Public procurement in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Contract for the construction of a conveyor-belt system for the thermal-electricity generation plant at Megalopolis — Failure to publish a contract notice — Technical reasons — Unforeseeable event — Extreme urgency)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-394/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Public procurement in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Contract for the construction of a conveyor-belt system for the thermal-electricity generation plant at Megalopolis - Failure to publish a contract notice - Technical reasons - Unforeseeable event - Extreme urgency)
   (2005/C 182/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-394/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Nolin and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: P. Mylonopoulos, D. Tsagkaraki and S. Chala) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 November 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by reason of the award by the public electricity undertaking Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismoy of the contract for the construction of a conveyor-belt system for the thermal-electricity generation plant at Megalopolis by means of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998, and, in particular, under Articles 20(1) and 21 thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case F-71/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Cantisani v Commission (Civil Service — Members of the contract staff — Conference interpreter — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Conflict of interest — Claim for compensation)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Cantisani v Commission
   (Case F-71/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Members of the contract staff - Conference interpreter - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Conflict of interest - Claim for compensation)
   2012/C 217/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicola Cantisani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. de Lannoy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Barquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance in respect of psychological harassment and claim for compensation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Cantisani to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 49.


title: Case C-306/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — LVP NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — System of importation — Applicable tariff rates)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — LVP NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-306/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - System of importation - Applicable tariff rates))
   (2015/C 065/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LVP NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994, as set out in Annex 1 A of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), are not such as to create rights which individuals might rely on directly before a national court in order to oppose the application of the customs tariff rate of EUR 176 per tonne, laid down in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-18/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/28

         Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-18/06)
   (2006/C 60/53)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects, listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC, which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by and specifying the conditions related to these checks (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 313 of 12.10.2004, p. 16.


title: Case T-383/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/21

         Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
   (Case T-383/16)
   (2016/C 350/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tri Ocean Energy (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125),

               —

               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-524/14 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 9 September 2014 in Case T-461/12 Hansestadt Lübeck v European Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/16

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 9 September 2014 in Case T-461/12 Hansestadt Lübeck v European Commission
   (Case C-524/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hansestadt Lübeck, previously Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               declare the action at first instance inadmissible;

                           —

                           alternatively: declare the action at first instance devoid of purpose;

                           —

                           alternatively: declare unfounded that part of the fourth plea in law by which it is alleged that there has been an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the selectivity criterion, and refer the case back to the General Court as regards the other parts of the fourth plea in law and the first, second, third and fifth pleas in law;

               —

               order the applicant in the proceedings at first instance to pay the costs of those proceedings and of the appeal, or, alternatively, in the event that the case is referred back to the General Court, reserve the decision on the costs of the first-instance proceedings and of the appeal for the final judgment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea in law: No individual concern.

   In the view of the General Court, the decision at issue is of individual concern to the Hanseatic City of Lübeck in its capacity as legal successor to the public undertaking which operated Lübeck airport until 1 January 2013, since, through the grant of State aid, that public undertaking exercised powers conferred exclusively on it. That conclusion is based on the following facts: the public undertaking proposes the schedule of charges to a regulatory authority of the Land which is authorised to approve or reject the schedule of charges (paragraphs 29 to 34 of the judgment under appeal).
   In the Commission’s view, the General Court established the facts correctly, but erred in law in deeming the public undertaking which operated Lübeck airport until 1 January 2013 to be a granting authority which exercised its own exclusively conferred powers. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in examining individual concern to a public or private entity which implements an aid scheme (such as the public undertaking which operated Lübeck airport until 1 January 2013), what is decisive is whether it is the entity itself or the State that is able to determine its management and policies (1). The facts established by the General Court show that the State has that power, for two reasons. The schedule of charges requires prior approval by the regulatory authority of the Land. The regulatory authority is in turn bound by Federal law on airport charges. Consequently, the mere fact that the airport operator has to propose the schedule of charges does not mean that that operator is in a position to determine its own management and the objectives pursued by the schedule of charges.
   In finding that the power to perform a preparatory step in respect of the grant of aid (in this case, proposing the schedule of charges to the regulatory authority) represents the exercise of a power to grant aid, the General Court erred in law, since it interpreted the expression ‘individually concerned’ too broadly.

      Second plea in law: No interest in bringing proceedings.

   The General Court considers that the Hanseatic City of Lübeck, in its capacity as legal successor to the public undertaking that operated Lübeck airport until 1 January 2013, continues to have an interest in bringing proceedings even after the sale of Lübeck airport to a private investor. The General Court did not consider it necessary to establish whether the duty to suspend the schedule of charges ended on 1 January 2013 because the schedule of charges no longer represented State aid, given that no further State resources were being applied. Even if that were the case, the applicant at first instance would, in the General Court’s view, retain an interest in bringing proceedings because the formal investigation procedure had not yet been completed and the decision at issue was, therefore, still producing legal effects.
   The first argument of the General Court fails because, even without a final decision on the completion of the formal investigation procedure, the decision at issue can lose its only legal effect — that is the duty to suspend the aid measure while the investigation is ongoing — if the aid measure comes to an end for reasons unrelated to the formal investigation procedure (in this case, the privatisation of the airport).
   The second argument of the General Court is inconsistent with case-law, which requires there to be a vested and present interest. In the present case, the risk of the measure being suspended before 1 January 2013 did not materialise because the airport was privatised. The Hanseatic City of Lübeck failed to prove its interest in pursuing its claim following the privatisation of the airport.
   On those grounds, the General Court erred in law in finding that the applicant at first instance had a present interest.

      Third plea in law: Incorrect interpretation of the concept of selectivity for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU

   In order to establish whether the schedule of charges of a public undertaking is selective, it is necessary, according to the General Court, to assess whether it applies on a non-discriminatory basis to all users and potential users of the goods or services provided by that public undertaking (paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal).
   This view is in stark contrast to the case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which a measure is not a general measure of fiscal or economic policy and is thus selective if it applies only to a particular economic sector or to particular undertakings in that economic sector (2) . The Court has thus decided that preferential rates for goods and services that are set by public undertakings are selective even if all users and potential users could avail themselves of them (3) . In his Opinion in Deutsche Lufthansa, Advocate General Mengozzi applied that case-law to a situation that corresponds precisely to the situation at issue here, namely an airport’s schedule of fees with discounts for certain major users, and confirmed the selectivity of the measure (4).

      Fourth plea in law: failure to give adequate reasons and contradictory reasons

   The General Court’s grounds are erroneous. First, an essential part of the selectivity assessment is omitted, namely determination of the objective pursued by the schedule of charges, since the question as to which undertaking is in a comparable position in law and in fact has to be investigated by reference to that system. Secondly, the Court’s reasons are contradictory, since it first applies the case-law on the selectivity of fiscal measures (paragraphs 51 and 53 of the judgment under appeal) and then finds that it is not relevant (paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal).

      Fifth plea in law: erroneous application of a strict standard of judicial review to a decision initiating a procedure.

   The General Court refers to the correct legal criterion, but completely overlooks in its reasoning the fact that the present case concerns a decision initiating a formal investigation procedure, which is subject only to light judicial review, particularly with regard to the statement of reasons (5) . No explanation is given in the judgment under appeal as to why the schedule of charges was so obviously not selective as to preclude the Commission from initiating a formal investigation procedure.

      (1)  Case 282/85 DEFI v Commission [1986] ECR 2649, paragraph 18.

      (2)  Case C-66/02 Italy v Commission [2005] ECR I-10901, paragraph 99, and Case C-148/04 Unicredito [2005] ECR I-11137, paragraph 45.

      (3)  See, in particular, Case C-126/01 GEMO [2003] ECR I-13769, paragraphs 35 to 39.

      (4)  Opinion in Case C-284/12 Deutsche Lufthansa [2013] ECR, paragraphs 47 to 55.

      (5)  See, most recently, order in Case T-172/14 R Stahlwerk Bous v Commission [2014] ECR, paragraphs 39 to 78 and the case-law cited.


title: Case C-117/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 88(1) and (2) EC — Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-117/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Article 88(1) and (2) EC - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)
   2014/C 45/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2010/10/EC of 20 November 2009 on the granting of a State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2010 L 4, p. 89) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010


title: Case T-299/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 August 2010 — Babcock Noell v The European joint undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Application for interim measures — Public contracts — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/31

         Order of the President of the General Court of 31 August 2010 — Babcock Noell v The European joint undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy
   (Case T-299/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public contracts - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balance of interests)
   2010/C 301/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Babcock Noell GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Werner and C. Elbrecht, lawyers)

      Defendant: The European joint undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: A. Verpont, Agent, assisted by C. Kennedy-Loest, K. Wilson and C. Thomas, Solicitors, and N. Pourbaix, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of decisions taken by the defendant, in the context of a tendering procedure, to reject the applicant’s tenders and to award to another tenderer Lot D of the contract for the supply of ITER toroidal field coils winding packs

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-12/05 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Herbert Meister v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Employment — Reassignment of a head of service as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/8

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Herbert Meister v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-12/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Employment - Reassignment of a head of service as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 82/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Herbert Meister (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case T-76/03 Meister v OHIM, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of OHIM's decision of 22 April 2002 appointing the appellant, in the interest of the service, with his post, as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Meister is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal;

               3.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-267/15: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — db-Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/65

         Order of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — db-Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)
   (Case T-267/15) (1)

   (2015/C 389/74)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-302/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság Ynos kft v János Varga (Article 234 EC — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumers — Unfair terms — National legislation adapted to comply with the directive after conclusion by a non-member State of an association agreement with the European Communities and before that State acceded to the European Union — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-302/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság Ynos kft v János Varga (1)

   (Article 234 EC - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumers - Unfair terms - National legislation adapted to comply with the directive after conclusion by a non-member State of an association agreement with the European Communities and before that State acceded to the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   (2006/C 48/14)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   In Case C-302/04; reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 10 June 2004, received at the Court on 14 July 2004, in the proceedings between Ynos kft and János Varga — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:
   In circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, the facts of which occurred prior to the accession of a State to the European Union, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the first and second questions.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 09.10.2004.


title: Case C-591/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty’s Treasury (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 355(3) TFEU — Status of Gibraltar — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Purely internal situation — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty’s Treasury
   (Case C-591/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 355(3) TFEU - Status of Gibraltar - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 277/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty’s Treasury

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 355(3) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 56 TFEU, is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of services by operators established in Gibraltar to persons established in the United Kingdom constitutes, as a matter of EU law, a situation confined in all respects within a single Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.