title: Case T-201/11: Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Si.mobil v Commission

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/24

         Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Si.mobil v Commission
   (Case T-201/11)
   2011/C 160/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. (Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia) (represented by: P. Alexiadis and E. Sependa, Solicitors)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission Decision C(2011) 355 final of 24 January 2011 in Case No COMP/39.707 Si.mobil/Mobitel; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2011) 355 final of 24 January 2011 in Case No COMP/39.707 Si.mobil/Mobitel, regarding the rejection of a complaint brought under Article 102 TFEU by it on 14 August 2009 for the allegedly abusive practices of Mobitel at the retail and wholesale functional levels of competition across a range of mobile communications markets.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in its application of the jurisdictional allocation rules set forth in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 43), as:

                           —

                           By adopting the contested decision, the Commission has failed to ensure that an effective application of European Union law will take place, thereby ignoring the overriding public policy dictates to which Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is subject, while also ignoring its own self-imposed rules contained in the Commission’s Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities and the relevant case-law;

                           —

                           The Commission has ignored its obligations under the Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, since it has failed to intervene when an ‘National Competition Authority is unduly drawing out proceedings’, which is the case where the two-year deadline imposed by Slovenian law has expired without the National Competition Authority having even sent a final Statement of Objections. Furthermore, the Commission has ignored evidence overwhelmingly demonstrating that it is the ‘best placed’ authority to adjudicate on the causes of action at issue. In the circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the Slovenian Competition Authority is ‘able to bring the infringement to an ending’ in a reasonable and timely manner. By contrast, in the case at hand, it is clear that the ‘Community provisions […] may be […] more effectively applied by the Commission.’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in its application of the balancing exercise set forth in the Automec case-law (2), as:

                           —

                           The applicant considers that the Commission’s discretion in deciding whether or not to assume jurisdiction under the Automec case-law is not unfettered. To this end, the applicant has submitted a large body of evidence demonstrating that there exists a ‘Community interest’ in the Commission exercising jurisdiction over Si.mobil's claims, which the Commission has unduly ignored. Moreover, the Commission has ignored its own Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (OJ 2009 C 45, p. 7), since both types of Competition law infringements (margin squeeze and predatory pricing) to which the applicant is subject are envisaged in the above mentioned document as an enforcement priority for the Commission, and there is an increasing interest in clarifying the ways in which the Commission applies those doctrines, especially in the mobile sector where such precedents have yet to be established.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (2)  Case T-24/90 Automec v Commission, [1992] ECR II-2223


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2005 in Case T-357/03 Bruno Gollnisch and Others v European Parliament (Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 January 2005
   in Case T-357/03 Bruno Gollnisch and Others v European Parliament (1)

   (Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 115/40)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-357/03: Bruno Gollnisch, residing in Limonest (France), Marie-France Stirbois, residing in Villeneuve-Loubet (France), Carl Lang, residing in Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, residing in Overijse (Belgium) and Koen Dillen, residing in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by W. de Saint Just, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and N. Lorenz, having an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 2 July 2003 amending the rules on the use of credits under budgetary heading 3701 of the general budget of the European Union — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The opinion of the Parliament's legal service, produced by the applicants in Annex 5 to the application, is removed from the file;

               2.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               3.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-141/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 25 March 2015 — Doux SA, Maître Sophie Gautier, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA, SCP Valliot-Le Guenevé-Abittbol, in the person of Maître Valliot, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 25 March 2015 — Doux SA, Maître Sophie Gautier, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA, SCP Valliot-Le Guenevé-Abittbol, in the person of Maître Valliot, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)
   (Case C-141/15)
   (2015/C 190/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Rennes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Doux SA, Maître Sophie Gautier, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA, SCP Valliot-Le Guenevé-Abittbol, in the person of Maître Valliot, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA

      Defendant: Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does compliance with the water-content threshold laid down by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 (1), in conjunction with Annexes VI and VII thereto, constitute a requirement of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ within the meaning of Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (2) and of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Nowaco Germany (C-353/04, EU:C:2006:522)?

               2.

               Can frozen poultry with a water content exceeding the threshold laid down by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, in conjunction with Annexes VI and VII thereto, accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority, be marketed within the European Union in normal conditions, within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, and, if so, in what conditions?

               3.

               Is the fact that the water-content threshold remains at 5,1 % under Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, and has not been revised for several decades, despite alleged changes in rearing practices and criticism in certain scientific studies that that threshold is obsolete, compatible or incompatible with EU law, and in particular with the principle of legal certainty?

               4.

               Are Annexes VI and VII to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 sufficiently precise for the checks provided for by Article 15 of that regulation to be carried out, or was France under an obligation to lay down ‘practical measures for the checks’‘at all stages of marketing’, failing which checks carried out at the stage of exportation of the goods cannot be relied upon?

               5.

               Can the requests for counter-analyses which are provided for by Article 16(2) and (5) of Regulation No 543/2008 in respect of the results of slaughterhouse checks be extended to checks carried out at the stage of marketing of export products, in the presence of the parties, pursuant to, inter alia, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat (OJ 2008 L 157, p. 46).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 2009 L 186, p. 1).


title: Case C-604/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-121/14: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/33

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-121/14: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council
   (Case C-604/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-121/14, PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Council's respective costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the cases back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Indonesian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Indonesia as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment admitted by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicant’s second plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Case C-299/04: Action brought on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/18

         Action brought on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-299/04)
   (2004/C 217/34)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Theofanis Christoforou, Legal Adviser, and Karolina Mojzesowicz, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to the Commission within the time-limit laid down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2002/77/EC (1) of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 14 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21.


title: Case C-663/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid — Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid — Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State — Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched — Compatibility with European Union law)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
   (Case C-663/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid - Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid - Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State - Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched - Compatibility with European Union law)
   2013/C 225/32
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Scandic Distilleries SA

      Defendant: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Oradea — Interpretation of Articles 7 and 22(2)(a) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of the national authorities to reimburse excise duty levied on products released for consumption in another Member State — Non-compliance by the consignor with its obligation to submit the request for reimbursement to the competent authorities of its Member State before the goods are dispatched — National legislation requiring the production of a series of documents which can be supplied only after the goods have been delivered — Correctness criteria which are more restrictive than the general five-year period applicable for any request for reimbursement — Forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement — Whether compliant with the principles of fiscal neutrality, equivalence and effectiveness

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, when products, which are subject to excise duty that has been paid and which have been released for consumption in one Member State, are transported to another Member State where those products are subject to excise duty, which has also been paid, a request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the Member State of departure may not be refused on the sole ground that that request was not made before those goods were dispatched, but must be assessed on the basis of Article 22(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC. By contrast, if the excise duty has not been paid in the Member State of destination such a request may be refused on the basis of Article 22(1) and (2) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-354/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 1, 2 and 6 — Equal treatment — Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex — Occupational pension — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4.1 and 4.2 — Method for calculating acquired pension rights — Legislation of a Member State — Different treatment of part-time workers)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH
   (Case C-354/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 1, 2 and 6 - Equal treatment - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex - Occupational pension - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4.1 and 4.2 - Method for calculating acquired pension rights - Legislation of a Member State - Different treatment of part-time workers))
   (2017/C 293/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Verden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ute Kleinsteuber

      Defendant: Mars GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended, and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of an occupational pension, distinguishes between employment income falling below the ceiling for the calculation of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income above that ceiling, and which does not treat income from part-time employment by calculating first the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment, then determining the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling and finally applying that proportion to the reduced income from part-time employment.

               2)

               Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of the occupational pension of an employee who has accumulated full-time and part-time employment periods, determines a uniform rate of activity for the total duration of the employment relationship, in so far as that calculation method of the pension does not violate the pro rata temporis rule. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.

               3)

               Articles 1 and 2 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an occupational pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio between (i) the employee’s length of service and (ii) the length of the period between taking up employment in the undertaking and the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme, and in so doing applies a maximum limit of reckonable years of service.

      (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 September 1996 in Case T-158/94: François Brunagel v. European Parliament (Officials - Recruitment procedure - Application of Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations - Assessment of candidates' vocational aptitude - Misuse of powers - Non-discrimination - Statement of reasons)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 3 36/25
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
                    of 19 September 1996                               and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                       has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 , in which
     in Case T-158/94 : François Brunagel v. European                  it :
                           Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of                    1 . orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations — Assessment of                     Bfrs 1 0 000 by way of damages for non-material
candidates ' vocational aptitude — Misuse of powers —                       damage;
         Non-discrimination — Statement of reasons)
                          ( 96/C 336/51 )                              2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-158/94 : Francois Brunagel , an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Alex Bonn ) —                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for annulment of the decision of the European                                  of 24 September 1996
Parliament of 1 9 July 1993 refusing to appoint the applicant
to the post of Head of Protocol and, consequently, for                 in Case T-485/93 : Société Louis Dreyfus et Cie v.
annulment of the decision appointing Mr B. to that post —                     Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:           (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
K. Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,                  of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the                    for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages —
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 , in                                        Admissibility)
which it :
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/53 )
1 . dismisses the action ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                       In Case T-485/93 : Societe Louis Dreyfus et Cie , established
(') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                      in Paris , represented by Robert Saint-Esteben , of the Paris
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities ( Agents : Marie-Jose Jonczy,
                                                                       Nicholas Khan and, at the hearing, Berend Jan Drijber ) —
                                                                       application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
                                                                       Vnesheconombank and , second, for damages for the loss
                    of 19 September 1996                               allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First
in Case T-3 86/94 : Alain-Pierre Allo v. Commission of the             Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
                 European Communities ( 1 )                            President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges; J.
(Officials — 'Second stream ' procedure for promotion to               Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Grade A3 — Action for annulment — Personal file —                      given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it :
      Absence of staff reports — Action for damages)
                                                                       1 . dismisses     the     application     for annulment    as
                          ( 96/C 336/52 )                                   inadmissible;
               (Language of the case: French)                          2 . dismisses the objection of inadmissibility inasmuch as it
                                                                            concerns the claims for compensation for the material
In Case T-386/94 : Alain-Pierre Allo, an official of the                    and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                         applicant;
Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              3 . orders the procedure relating to those claims for
of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission                   compensation to be continued in relation to the
                                                                            substance :
of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves
Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
                                                                       4.   reserves the costs .
annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 May
1994 listing the officials eligible for promotion to grade A 3
under the so-called ' second stream' procedure and , second,           (') OJ No C 198 , 22 . 7 . 1993 .
for damages for the material and non-material damage
suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-295/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Vitro — Earlier Community word mark VITRAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)
   (Case T-295/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Vitro - Earlier Community word mark VITRAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/59)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV (Garza García, Nuevo Léon, Mexico) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1640/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-298/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/25

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission
   (Case T-298/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-507/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)
   (Case C-507/17)
   (2017/C 347/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Google Inc.

      Defendant: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

      Other parties: Wikimedia Foundation Inc., Fondation pour la liberté de la presse, Microsoft Corp., Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Others, Article 19 and Others, Internet Freedom Foundation and Others, Défenseur des droits

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘right to de-referencing’, as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 13 May 2014 (1) on the basis of the provisions of Articles 12(b) and 14(a) of Directive [95/46/EC] of 24 October 1995, (2) be interpreted as meaning that a search engine operator is required, when granting a request for de-referencing, to deploy the de-referencing to all of the domain names used by its search engine so that the links at issue no longer appear, irrespective of the place from where the search initiated on the basis of the requester’s name is conducted, and even if it is conducted from a place outside the territorial scope of Directive [95/46/EC] of 24 October 1995?

               2.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative, must the ‘right to de-referencing’, as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment cited above, be interpreted as meaning that a search engine operator is required, when granting a request for de-referencing, only to remove the links at issue from the results displayed following a search conducted on the basis of the requester’s name on the domain name corresponding to the State in which the request is deemed to have been made or, more generally, on the domain names distinguished by the national extensions used by that search engine for all of the Member States of the European Union?

               3.

               Moreover, in addition to the obligation mentioned in Question 2, must the ‘right to de-referencing’, as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment cited above, be interpreted as meaning that a search engine operator is required, when granting a request for de-referencing, to remove the results at issue, by using the ‘geo-blocking’ technique, from searches conducted on the basis of the requester’s name from an IP address deemed to be located in the State of residence of the person benefiting from the ‘right to de-referencing’, or even, more generally, from an IP address deemed to be located in one of the Member States subject to Directive [95/46/EC] of 24 October 1995, regardless of the domain name used by the internet user conducting the search?

      (1)  Judgment of 13 May 2014, Google Spain and Google, C-131/12, EU:C:2014:317.

      (2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-493/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 September 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Marco Identi

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 September 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Marco Identi
   (Case C-493/15)
   (2015/C 406/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Respondent: Marco Identi

      Question referred

   Must Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes be interpreted as precluding the application, in relation to value added tax, of a provision of national law which provides for the extinguishment of debts arising from VAT in favour of taxable persons admitted to the bankruptcy discharge procedure governed by Articles 142 and 143 of Royal Decree No 267/1942?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-63/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
4.5.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/31
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission                     Appeal brought on 27 February 2002 by the Office for
of the European Communities against the United                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                      Designs) against the judgment delivered on 11 December
                                                                         2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Case T-138/00 between
                           (Case C-63/02)                                Erpo Möbelwerke GmbH and the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (2002/C 109/53)
                                                                                (Case C-64/02 P)
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                                         (2002/C 109/54)
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 26 February 2002 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December
                                                                         2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in Case T-138/00 between Erpo
                                                                         Möbelwerke GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1) was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
—     declare that by failing to adopt for Northern Ireland              27 February 2002 by the Office for Harmonisation in the
      and Wales all the laws, regulations and administrative             Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive              Alexander von Mühlendahl, Vice-President of the Office, and
      98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water                Gregor Schneider, member of the Legal Services and Court
      intended for human consumption (1) or, in any event, by            Proceedings Unit of the Legal Department.
      failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) and
      17(2) of this directive;                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         —     set aside the contested judgment;
                                                                         —     dismiss the action against the decision of the Third Board
                                                                               of Appeal of 23 March 2000 in Case R 392/1999-3, or
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                alternatively refer the proceedings back to the Court of
                                                                               First Instance;
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by            —     order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                  both of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period                  proceedings.
expired on 25 December 2000 without the United Kingdom
having informed the Commission of the provisions adopted to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the
Commission as regards Wales and Northern Ireland.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Since the Commission is in possession of no other information
enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted
the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume that the             Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
UK has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.             No 40/94 (2): the Court of First Instance applied a new
                                                                         examination criterion in the contested judgment. The Office
                                                                         considers that to limit the possibility of refusing a trade mark
                                                                         application to cases in which general use amongst the class of
(1) OJ L 330, 05.12.1998, p. 32.                                         persons concerned is proved constitutes a legally erroneous
                                                                         interpretation of Article 7(1)(b). If it were possible to refuse an
                                                                         application for a trade mark only if that mark, or at all events
                                                                         signs portrayed in the same way, were shown to be already


title: Case C-315/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 3(1) and (10) — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 19 — National legislation requiring the person to whom posted employees or trainees are deployed to declare those who are unable to submit the acknowledgement of receipt of the declaration which should have been made to the host Member State by their employer established in another Member State — Criminal penalty)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others
   (Case C-315/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 3(1) and (10) - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 19 - National legislation requiring the person to whom posted employees or trainees are deployed to declare those who are unable to submit the acknowledgement of receipt of the declaration which should have been made to the host Member State by their employer established in another Member State - Criminal penalty))
   (2015/C 046/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Edgard Jan De Clercq, Emiel Amede Rosa De Clercq, Nancy Genevieve Wilhelmina Rottiers, Ermelinda Jozef Martha Tampère, Thermotec NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the recipient of services performed by workers posted by a service provider established in another Member State is required to declare to the competent authorities, before those workers begin to work, the data identifying those workers who are unable to submit proof of the declaration which their employer should have made to the competent authorities of that host Member State prior to the commencement of that provision of services, since such legislation is capable of being justified as safeguarding an overriding ground of public interest, such as the protection of workers or the combating of social security fraud, on condition that it is established that that legislation is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective or objectives pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them, these being matters for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-332/13: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Christodoulou and Stavrinou v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment — Support programme for stability in Cyprus — Statement by the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/25

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Christodoulou and Stavrinou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-332/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Support programme for stability in Cyprus - Statement by the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 448/33)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Chrisanthi Christodoulou (Paphos, Cyprus) and Maria Stavrinou (Larnaka, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppene, M. Konstantinidis, Agents) and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the statement of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mrs Chrisanthi Christodoulou and Mrs Maria Stavrinou are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-246/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/11

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen
   (Case C-246/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part))
   (2016/C 343/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents), Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész and A. Richter, lawyers)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/65

         Action brought on 19 February 2004 by Jean-Pierre Castets against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-80/04)
   (2004/C 94/162)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 February 2004 by Jean-Pierre Castets, residing in Saint Victor Des Oules (France), represented by Grégory Crétin, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 9 December 2003 whereby the appointing authority rejected complaint No R/456/03 formulated by the applicant on 29 July 2003;

               —

               Order the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements of the European Commission to recalculate the number of days' annual leave not taken by the applicant on the date on which he left the service and to adjust, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations, payment for the 31 days not taken in 2002, plus interest at the applicable rate;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case, who was retired and awarded an invalidity pension, disputes the number of days of leave in respect of which he received compensation when he left the service.
   In support of his claims, he alleges that it follows from the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations that:

               —

               the conclusions of the Heads of Administration No 53A/70 of 9 January 1970, which limit to 12 working days the amount of annual leave that can be carried forward, even in the event of prolonged sickness, cannot be applied, since they are contrary to the applicable provisions of the statute;

               —

               an official on sick leave cannot apply to carry forward days of annual leave, since such an act is a step of an occupational nature which an official on sick leave is not required to carry out;

               —

               an official who has not used up his annual leave upon leaving the service is entitled, without any limit, to payment of compensation for the whole of his annual leave which could not be used up owing to the needs of the service;

               —

               the fact of being on sick leave for a full year clearly constitutes a need of the service which justifies days of leave in excess of 12 days being carried forward.


title: Case C-521/09 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2009 by Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/28

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2009 by Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case C-521/09 P)
   2010/C 37/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally:

                           —

                           Set aside, on the basis of Article 256 TFEU and Article 56 of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the entire judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission of the European Communities;

                           —

                           grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

                           —

                           consequently, annul Articles 1(d), 2(c), 3 and 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81[EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA);

               —

               In the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fine of EUR 45 million imposed jointly and severally on Arkema SA and Elf Aquitaine by Article 2(c) of the above Commission decision, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction on the basis of objective mistakes in the grounds and the reasoning of the Court’s judgment in Case T-174/05, as described in the six pleas submitted in the present appeal:

               —

               In any event, order the European Commission to pay all costs, including those incurred by Elf Aquitaine before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits six pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, the appellant submits that the Court erred in law when it did not draw all necessary consequences from the repressive nature of the sanctions in Article 101 TFEU [81 EC]. In particular, the appellants criticise that the Court excluded it unlawfully from the application of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender by imputing to the applicant responsibility for a breach committed by its subsidiary, even though the facts submitted by the appellant show, to the contrary, that it did not personally commit any breach and that it was even unaware, at the time it was occurring, that the contested breach was taking place.
   By its second plea, Elf Aquitaine claims that there has been an infringement of the rights of the defence due to a wrong interpretation of the principles of equity and equality of arms. In the judgment under appeal, the Court held that the principle of equality of arms was respected in the present case since the appellant was given the opportunity to put its case properly during the administrative procedure and was informed for the first time of the claims brought against it in the statement of objections. According to the appellant, that interpretation is wrong because it is tantamount to denying that there is a need to respect the rights of the defence of the appellant from the stage of the preliminary investigation onwards and fails to have regard also to the need for the Commission to conduct such an inquiry in an impartial manner — favourable to their case or otherwise — in respect of all persons suspected of having committed a breach.
   By its third plea, the appellant claims that the Court committed several errors of law in respect of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. Those errors concerned both the assessment of the wording and the strength of the statement of reasons that the Commission had to provide and the content of the judgment under appeal itself, which contained several contradictory statements.
   By its fourth plea, Elf Aquitaine alleges that there has been an infringement of Article 263 TFEU [230 EC] in that the Court exceeded the limits of the power to review the legality of a decision its own assessment of whether a breach committed by a subsidiary can be imputed to its parent company for that in the Commission’s decision, which was weak and summary.
   By its fifth plea, which consists of four claims, the appellant criticises the Court’s failure to apply the rules concerning the imputability of anti-competitive practices. Rather than confirm the presumption that a parent company is responsible for the actions of its subsidiary, the Court ought to have examined whether the Commission had adduced evidence that the appellant actually interfered in the management of its subsidiary.
   By its sixth and last plea, the appellant finally submits, in the alternative, that if the Court’s errors and infringement did not bring about the annulment of the Commission decision, they ought, at least, lead the Court to annul or reduce the fine imposed on it jointly and severally.


title: Case T-142/01: Action brought on 21 June 2001 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.9.2001
Action brought on 21 June 2001 by Organización de                      —     make any other appropriate order to the effect that the
Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) against                            Commission should fulfil its obligations under
         Commission of the European Communities                               Article 233 EC and, in particular, that the Commission
                                                                              should re-examine the situation;
                        (Case T-142/01)
                                                                        —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                              pay all the costs.
                        (2001/C 245/45)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicant is a Spanish frozen tunny producers’ organis-
European Communities on 21 June 2001 by Organización de                ation, whose members are associations of tunny freezer vessel
Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC), whose regis-                owners specialising in fishing for tuna outside Community
tered office is in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ramón                waters. In its capacity as a producers’ organisation, it places
Garcia-Gallardo and Marta Moya.                                         reliance on a Community mechanism, set up in order to ensure
                                                                        supply to the Community industry and offer the necessary
                                                                        protection for producers’ income, and which consists in the
                                                                        granting of compensatory allowances in periods when prices
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             for the importation of tuna into the Community fall as a result
                                                                        of price movements in the global market. The system for
                                                                        calculating such compensation is based on the level of quarterly
—    find the present action admissible;                                deliveries of each producers’ organisation (and therefore of
                                                                        its members) with respect to the average quantities sold and
                                                                        delivered by its members during the equivalent quarter in the
—    annul the provisions adopted by the European Com-                  three preceding fishing years.
     mission reducing the quantities eligible for compensatory
     allowances in respect of OPTUC, namely:
     (a)   Commission Regulation (EC) No 584/2001 of                    The applicant contests a number of Commission regulations
           26 March 2001 amending Regulations (EC)                      which lay down the compensatory allowances for the quarters
           No 1103/2000 and (EC) No 1926/2000 providing                 for the period between 1 July 1999 and 30 September 2000
           for the granting of compensation to producers’               inasmuch as:
           organisations in respect of tuna delivered to the
           processing industry from 1 July to 30 September
           1999 and from 1 October to 31 December 1999 (1);             (a)   they review the amounts originally granted to the appli-
                                                                              cant by two earlier regulations, repealing them, on
                                                                              account of the fact that one of its members has now
     (b) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)                           become member of another producers’ organisation,
           No 585/2001 of 26 March 2001 providing for                         whose compensatory allowances have been increased to
           compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna                  the detriment of the applicant;
           delivered to the processing industry between 1 Janu-
           ary and 31 March 2000 and the annex thereto (2);
                                                                        (b) they modify one of the parameters for calculating the
                                                                              compensation due to each of the producers’ organis-
     (c)   Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)                         ations, acknowledging that the average quantities deliver-
           No 808/2001 of 26 April 2001 providing for                         ed by its members in the three preceding years — to be
           compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna                  compared with the level of deliveries in the quarter in
           delivered to the processing industry between 1 April               question — might be changed on account of the fact that
           and 30 June 2000 and the annex thereto (3); and                    one of its members has moved to another producers’
                                                                              organisation.
     (d) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
           No 1163/2001 of 14 June 2001 providing for
           compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna            The applicant is of the view that the Commission, by making
           delivered to the processing industry between 1 July          such changes to the system, and by the way in which it has
           and 30 September 2000 (4).                                   done so, has erred in two respects:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 245/29
—      Lack of legal basis                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January                   The applicant took part in Competition COM/TB/99. He
       1998 (5), which contains the provisions in force concern-            challenges his not being placed on the reserve list for the
       ing compensatory allowances, does not lay down any                   recruitment of Administrative Assistants, Senior Administrat-
       specific rule on which the Commission might base itself              ive Assistants and Principal Administrative Assistants.
       in order to ’revise downwards’ the production averages
       for the last three fishing years in the event that one of the
       members leaves a producers’ organisation.                            In support of his application, the applicant claims breach of:
—      Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations                   —     the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                            —     the procedural guarantees afforded by the Community
       According to the legislation in force when the contested                   legal system;
       regulations were adopted and entered into force, the
       applicant legitimately expected to receive higher com-               —     essential procedural requirements and, in particular,
       pensatory allowances. Such expectations were dashed                        infringement of the rules governing the running of
       when the applicable rules were changed under the                           competitions such as those laid down in Article 3(1) of
       contested provisions.                                                      Annex II to the Staff Regulations and in the ’Guide for
                                                                                selection boards and committees’;
( 1) OJ 2001 L 86, p 4.                                                     —     the legal framework of the competition notice; and
( 2) OJ 2001 L 86, p. 8.
( 3) OJ 2001 L 118, p. 12.
                                                                            —     the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
( 4) OJ 2001 L 159, p. 10.
( 5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January 1998
     laying down detailed rules for granting the compensatory allow-
     ance for tuna intended for the processing industry (OJ 1998 L 17,
     p. 8).
                                                                            Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-145/01)
Action brought on 22 June 2001 by Raymond Maxwell
      against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2001/C 245/47)
                           (Case T-143/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2001/C 245/46)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino,
                                                                            residing in Lauzun (France), represented by George Vander-
                                                                            sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 2001 by Raymond                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Maxwell, residing in Lasne (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
                                                                                origin of his arthritic symptoms;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the consequential decisions to charge to the
—      annul the decision of the selection board for competition                  applicant the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor
       COM/TB/99 to award to the applicant for the oral test a                    appointed by the applicant to the Medical Committee
       mark too low to allow him to be placed on the reserve                      and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third
       list;                                                                      doctor;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-411/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Shipments of waste — Choice of legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-411/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipments of waste - Choice of legal basis - Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC)
   2009/C 267/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, M. Huttunen and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou and U. Rösslein, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, A. Adam and G. Le Bras, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, E. O’Neil and S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents, A. Dashwood, Barrister)

      Re:

   Annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis — Act pursuing a dual purpose or having a dual component and requiring cumulative legal bases (Art. 175(1) EC and Art. 133 EC)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 02.12.2006.


title: Case C-220/08: Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/16

         Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-220/08)
   (2008/C 183/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38 of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/83 into domestic law expired on 10 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.


title: Case T-273/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/4

         Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve v Commission
   (Case T-273/09)
   2009/C 244/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by: L. Misson, G. Ernes and A. Pel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 May 2009 annexed to the present application;

               —

               urge the Commission to undertake an enquiry in order to ascertain violations by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in order to:

                           —

                           annul the regulations infringing Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and the sanctions imposed by FIGC, CONI and UEFA on Juventus FC S.p.A. of Turin;

                           —

                           urge FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA to give compensation equivalent to the loss actually suffered by the Association by the fact of the infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by those undertakings and associations of undertakings;

                           —

                           order all appropriate penalties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3916 of 12 May 2009 by which the Commission rejected, as lacking legitimate interest and lacking Community interest, the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged violations of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC committed by the Federazione Italiano Gioco Calcio (FIGC) (Italian National Soccer Federation), the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) (Italian National Olympic Committee), the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) (Union of European Football Associations) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (International Federation of Association Football) in relation to disciplinary measures imposed on Juventus Football Club S.p.A of Turin (‘Juventus’).
   In support of its action, the applicant raises a number of pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               breach by the Commission of its duty to state reasons and its task of implementing and orienting competition policy, since the Commission has not taken into consideration the factual and legal elements set out in the complaint filed by the applicant, according to which the decisions taken by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA to relegate Juventus to League B of the Italian football championship and to prohibit it from taking part in the Champions League infringe Articles 81 EC and 82 EC;

               —

               breach of Article 81 EC, since the decisions taken by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA must be regarded as decisions of associations of undertakings which were not purely sport-related decisions and which had the effect of restricting competition in the entirety of the common market, since they harm the interests of consumers of goods and services on the football market and harm the competitive structure of the common market by their effect on Juventus;

               —

               abuse of a dominant position by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA in breach of Article 82 EC, in that they took decisions which were discriminatory, disproportionate and harmful to the rights of the defence of Juventus.


title: Case C-307/06: Order of the President of the Court of the Court of 21 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/23

         Order of the President of the Court of the Court of 21 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-307/06) (1)

   (2008/C 79/40)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-353/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Jürgen Hein, Hjördis Hein v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Jürgen Hein, Hjördis Hein v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-353/13)
   2013/C 274/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jürgen Hein, Hjördis Hein

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the tasks to the third party?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 17 September 1996 in Case C-19/95 P: San Marco Impex Italiana Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Public work contract - Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Teaty)

text:
23 . 11 . 96        1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/ 13
suffered as a result of his wrongful imprisonment has not yet                           ORDER OF THE COURT
been made good — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                                         ( Fourth Chamber )
of J. -P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida ( Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; A. Pergola ,                                     of 11 July 1996
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-325 /94 P: An Taisce — The National Trust for
12 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF ) v.
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the              (Appeal — Actionable decision — Appeal clearly
question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                                       unfounded)
Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996.                                                ( 96/C 354/25 )
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-325/94 P : An Taisce — The National Trust for
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF )
                        ( Third Chamber )                             (represented by George Berrisch ) — appeal against the
                         of 12 June 1996                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 23 September 1994 in
in Case C-96/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Case T-461 /93 between An Taisce and WWF UK and the
Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de                Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-733 , seeking to have that
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique           the Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                           Florens SA (M                              Carmel O'Reilly and Marc van der Woude ) — the Court
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of          ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President
                         Court ofJustice)                             of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                           ( 96/C 354/24 )                             ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General ; R.
                                                                      Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 July 1996 in
                                                                      which it :
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs .
In Case C - 95/96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [Commercial Court],
Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
d' Allocations Familiales )       des Bouches-du-Rhone and
Clinique Florens SA on the question whether it is possible to
request the opening of proceedings for redressement                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
judiciaire ( judicial settlement) involving a person who has
                                                                                (First Chamber )
been charged with and acquitted of a criminal offence,
where the damage suffered as a result of his wrongful                                      of 17 September 1996
 imprisonment has not yet been made good — the Court                   in Case C-19/95 P: San Marco Impex Italiana Sri v.
 ( Third Chamber), composed ofJ. -P. Puissochet, President of                 Commission of the European Communities ( J )
 Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C.
 Gulmann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.                  (Appeal — Public work contract — Article 178 and the
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 June 1996 , the                        second paragraph of Article 215 of the Teaty)
 operative part of which is as follows :                                                          ( 96/C 354/26 )
 The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the                             (Language of the case: English)
 question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
 Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996 .                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                        In Case C-19/95 : San Marco Impex Italiana Sri ( represented
                                                                        by Lucette Defalque ) — appeal for the annulment of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/ 14           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                23 . 11 . 96
judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the            24 September 1996, the operative part of which is as
European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ) on 16 November               follows :
1994 in Case T-451 /93 San Marco v. Commission [ 1994]
ECR 11-1061 , and for compensation for the damage
allegedly suffered by the appellant in relation to a public         1 . When committing expenditure in implementation of its
works contract concluded by it with the Government of the               circular of 2 May 1996 inviting applications for
Somali Democratic Republic, the other party to the                      Commission funding of measures to assist the elderly
proceedings being the Commission of the European                        and of its circular received by the United Kingdom
Communities ( Agents: Hans Peter Hartvig and Claire Bury )              authorities on 15 May 1996 inviting applications for
— the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward              Commission funding of measures to combat poverty
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L.                and social exclusion, the Commission shall clearly state
Sevon, Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar: R.            that such commitments are conditional upon the
Grass, made an order on 17 September 1996 , the operative               judgment of the Court in the main proceedings and shall
part of which is as follows :                                           make no payment until that judgment is delivered.
                                                                    2.  Costs are reserved.
1 . The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
2 . San Marco Impex Italiana is ordered to bear its own
      costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
t 1 ) OJ No C 74, 1995 .
                                                                    Action brought on 26 August 1996 by the Federal Republic
                                                                    of Germany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-288/96 )
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                                     ( 96/C 354/28 )
                     of 24 September 1996
in Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United                   An action against the Commission of the European
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supported             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
by Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the                 European Communities on 26 August 1996 by the Federal
                   European Communities (*)                         Republic of Germany, represented by Bernd Kloke,
(Applications for interim measures — Social policy —                Oberregierungsrat, of the Federal Ministry of Economic
Community measures to assist the elderly — Community                Affairs, and Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus
       measures to combat poverty and social exclusion)             Westrick Stegemann, Brussels .
                          96/C 354/27
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    — declare Commission Decision COM(96)1646 def. of
                                                                        29 May 1996 on aid from Niedersachsen to JAKO
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            Jadekost GmbH & Co. KG void;
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents:             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
John Collins and Derrick Wyatt ), supported by Federal
Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and Bernd
Kloke ), against Commission of the European Communities             Infringement of the right to be heard : the Commission did
                                                                    not make available to Niedersachsen or the Federal
 ( Agents : Peter Oliver and Maria Patakia ) — application for
suspension of operation of the decisions or acts comprised          Republic of Germany the observations submitted by
or referred to in the Commission circular of 2 May 1996             competitors of Jadekost which apparently influenced the
                                                                    Commission 's decision .
inviting applications for Commission funding of measures
to assist the elderly and in the Commission circular received
by the United Kingdom authorities on 15 May 1 996 inviting          Breach of essential procedural requirements ( Article 173 ,
applications for Commission funding of measures to                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty ): the Commission's
combat poverty and social exclusion, or for interim                 investigation of the facts was inadequate and its account of
measures — the President of the Court made an order on              them in the decision is inaccurate .


title: Case C-431/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2013 — Vietnam Airlines Co. Ltd v Brigitta Voss, Klaus-Jürgen Voss

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2013 — Vietnam Airlines Co. Ltd v Brigitta Voss, Klaus-Jürgen Voss
   (Case C-431/13)
   2013/C 325/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: Vietnam Airlines Co. Ltd

      Applicants and respondents: Brigitta Voss, Klaus-Jürgen Voss

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a passenger entitled to receive in full the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) for long delay of flights, even when a third party, other than a passenger, has already made a payment to the passenger as compensation for the delay suffered, or should such payment be deducted?

               2.

               If such a deduction should be made: Is that deduction applicable only to claims for damages within the meaning of German law or also to claims for a price reduction?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-89/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2009 — Lebard v Commission (Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2009 — Lebard v Commission
   (Case T-89/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 11/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Lebard (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. de Guillenchmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato and, subsequently, M. Gippini Fournier, agents)

      Re:

   Inter alia, an application for annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting, first, the request for a review as to whether the company Aventis had complied with the commitments entered into in connection with the Commission’s decision of 9 August 1999 in Case IV/M.1378 — Hoechst/Rhône-Poulenc, and, second, the application for withdrawal of the Commission’s decision of 13 July 1999 in Case IV/M.1517 — Rhodia/Donau Chemie/Albright & Wilson.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Daniel Lebard shall bear his own costs as well as the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Valauret SA.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-291/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — egeplast international v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/39

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — egeplast international v Commission
   (Case T-291/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/50)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-5/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — AK (*) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Objection to refusal of authorisation for care)

text:
                  13.6.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 211/18

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) —  AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand
         (Case C-5/15) (1)

         ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Objection to refusal of authorisation for care))
         (2016/C 211/22)
         Language of the case: Dutch

            Referring court

         Gerechtshof Amsterdam

            Parties to the main proceedings

            Applicant: AK (*1)

            Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

            Operative part of the judgment

         Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision covers the stage of an objection before a public body during which that body gives a decision against which an action may be brought before the courts.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.