# Official Journal C 347/2011

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2011.347.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 347 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5426 November 2011 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2011.347.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 347

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5426 November 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2011/C 347/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 340, 19.11.2011 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2011/C 347/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 340, 19.11.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2011/C 347/02 | Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) (Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches — Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards — Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State — Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State — Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted — Copyright — Television broadcasting right — Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Protection of services based on conditional access — Illicit device — Directive 98/84/EC — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen — Exception to the reproduction right — Communication of works to the public in public houses — Directive 93/83/EEC) | 2 |
| 2011/C 347/03 | Case C-302/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State Aid — Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia — Reductions in social security contributions — Withdrawal) | 3 |
| 2011/C 347/04 | Case C-493/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Free movement of capital — Foreign and national pension funds — Corporation tax — Dividends — Exemption — Difference in treatment) | 4 |
| 2011/C 347/05 | Case C-381/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Industrial Policy — Food hygiene — Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 — Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food) | 4 |
| 2011/C 347/06 | Case C-382/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria)) — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Industrial Policy — Food hygiene — Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 — Self-service retail of bread and bakery products) | 5 |
| 2011/C 347/07 | Case C-421/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab (VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 21(1)(b) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country — Concept of taxable person established abroad) | 5 |
| 2011/C 347/08 | Case C-443/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges — France) — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Importation, by a person resident in a Member State, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — Ecological subsidy — Conditions — Registration certificate attesting to the nature of the demonstration vehicle) | 6 |
| 2011/C 347/09 | Case C-506/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht — Germany) — Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Self-employed frontier workers — Agricultural lease — Agricultural structure — Legislation of a Member State enabling an objection to be made to the contract if the goods produced in national territory by the self employed Swiss frontier farmers are intended to be exported, free of duty, to Switzerland) | 6 |
| 2011/C 347/10 | Case C-364/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság | 7 |
| 2011/C 347/11 | Case C-409/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Metropolitan Court lodged on 1 August 2011 — Gábor Csonka and Others v Hungarian State | 7 |
| 2011/C 347/12 | Case C-438/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen | 8 |
| 2011/C 347/13 | Case C-439/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2011 by Ziegler SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission | 8 |
| 2011/C 347/14 | Case C-444/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2011 by Team Relocations NV and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08, Team Relocations NV and others v Commission | 9 |
| 2011/C 347/15 | Case C-451/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2011 — Natthaya Dülger v District of Wetterau | 10 |
| 2011/C 347/16 | Case C-455/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Solvay SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-186/06: Solvay SA v European Commission | 11 |
| 2011/C 347/17 | Case C-466/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 9 September 2011 — Gennaro Currà and Others v The Italian Republic | 12 |
| 2011/C 347/18 | Case C-467/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2011 by Audi AG and Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09 Audi AG, Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 12 |
| 2011/C 347/19 | Case C-473/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands | 13 |
| 2011/C 347/20 | Case C-477/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission | 13 |
| 2011/C 347/21 | Case C-483/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu v Romanian State represented by the Ministry for Public Finance | 14 |
| 2011/C 347/22 | Case C-484/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Mariana Budan v Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Argeș | 15 |
| 2011/C 347/23 | Case C-487/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 15 |
| 2011/C 347/24 | Case C-489/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-133/07: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission | 15 |
| 2011/C 347/25 | Case C-492/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA) | 16 |
| 2011/C 347/26 | Case C-493/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission | 17 |
| 2011/C 347/27 | Case C-494/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG v European Commission | 18 |
| 2011/C 347/28 | Case C-498/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission | 18 |
| 2011/C 347/29 | Case C-501/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2011 by Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07 Schindler Holding Ltd and Others v European Commission, supported by the Council of the European Union | 19 |
| 2011/C 347/30 | Case C-502/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2011 — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture | 20 |
| 2011/C 347/31 | Case C-503/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission | 21 |
| 2011/C 347/32 | Case C-504/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission | 22 |
| 2011/C 347/33 | Case C-505/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission | 23 |
| 2011/C 347/34 | Case C-506/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission | 24 |
| 2011/C 347/35 | Case C-512/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy | 25 |
| 2011/C 347/36 | Case C-513/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy | 25 |
| | General Court |
| 2011/C 347/37 | Case T-38/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Agroexpansión v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market sharing — Fines — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation) | 26 |
| 2011/C 347/38 | Case T-41/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Deterrent effect — Attenuating circumstances) | 26 |
| 2011/C 347/39 | Case T-139/06: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures — Request for payment — Competence of the Commission — Jurisdiction of the General Court) | 27 |
| 2011/C 347/40 | Case T-312/07: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission (Financial contribution granted for an environmental project — LIFE — Decision to recover in part the amount paid out — Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons) | 27 |
| 2011/C 347/41 | Case T-449/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — SLV Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LINE — Earlier national word and figurative marks Line — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)) | 27 |
| 2011/C 347/42 | Case T-561/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Gutknecht v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Biocidal products — Establishment of a list of active substances on the market — Adoption of regulations by the Commission by virtue of Directive 98/8/EC — Causal link) | 28 |
| 2011/C 347/43 | Case T-393/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark NaViKey — Earlier Community word mark NAVI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Breach of the duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2011/C 347/44 | Case T-439/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Purvis v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Additional pension scheme — Refusal to grant a voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum — Plea of illegality — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality) | 28 |
| 2011/C 347/45 | Case T-53/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division — Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax — Appeal before the Board of Appeal — Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Period for submission — Admissibility of the appeal — Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Correction of a decision — Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision) | 29 |
| 2011/C 347/46 | Case T-87/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Chestnut Medical Technologies v OHIM (PIPELINE) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark PIPELINE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 29 |
| 2011/C 347/47 | Case T-213/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Dismissal — Breakdown of trust — Statement of reasons — Distortion of the evidence) | 29 |
| 2011/C 347/48 | Case T-224/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Association belge des consommateurs test-achats v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Belgian energy market — Decision declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market — Commitments given during the initial phase of the investigation — Decision refusing the partial referral of the merger investigation to the national authorities — Action for annulment — Consumer association — Interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to initiate the in-depth review procedure — Procedural rights — Inadmissibility) | 30 |
| 2011/C 347/49 | Case T-304/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (caldea) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark caldea — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 30 |
| 2011/C 347/50 | Case T-277/07: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 31 |
| 2011/C 347/51 | Case T-341/08: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Agreement and withdrawal of application — No need to adjudicate) | 31 |
| 2011/C 347/52 | Case T-96/09: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — UCAPT v Council (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes for farmers — Production aid for tobacco — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Not of individual concern — Inadmissible) | 31 |
| 2011/C 347/53 | Case T-128/09: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 — Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission (State aid — Action for annulment — Applicants’ failure to act — No need to adjudicate) | 32 |
| 2011/C 347/54 | Case T-297/10: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — DBV v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China — Rights of defence — Calculation of normal value — Proportionality — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 32 |
| 2011/C 347/55 | Case T-149/11: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — GS v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 — Right of the Member States to refuse the reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation — No direct concern — Inadmissible) | 32 |
| 2011/C 347/56 | Case T-206/11: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Complex v OHIM — Kajometal (KX) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 33 |
| 2011/C 347/57 | Case T-346/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency) | 33 |
| 2011/C 347/58 | Case T-347/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Rejection of the request for the defence of immunity for a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Inadmissibility) | 33 |
| 2011/C 347/59 | Case T-379/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC — Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency) | 33 |
| 2011/C 347/60 | Case T-381/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Eurofer v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC — Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency) | 34 |
| 2011/C 347/61 | Case T-384/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency) | 34 |
| 2011/C 347/62 | Case T-395/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (Application for interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2011/C 347/63 | Case T-421/11 R: Order of the judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 3 October 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency) | 35 |
| 2011/C 347/64 | Case T-422/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable damage — Lack of urgency) | 35 |
| 2011/C 347/65 | Case T-309/10: Action brought on 15 September 2011 — Klein v Commission | 35 |
| 2011/C 347/66 | Case T-489/11: Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission | 36 |
| 2011/C 347/67 | Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA) | 37 |
| 2011/C 347/68 | Case T-498/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission | 37 |
| 2011/C 347/69 | Case T-503/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Al-Aqsa v Council | 38 |
| 2011/C 347/70 | Case T-508/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — LTTE v Council | 39 |
| 2011/C 347/71 | Case T-512/11: Action brought on 24 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission | 40 |
| 2011/C 347/72 | Case T-516/11: Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission | 40 |
| 2011/C 347/73 | Case T-519/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission | 41 |
| 2011/C 347/74 | Case T-526/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — Igcar Chemicals v ECHA | 41 |
| 2011/C 347/75 | Case T-538/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Belgium v Commission | 42 |
| 2011/C 347/76 | Case T-540/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission | 42 |
| 2011/C 347/77 | Case T-234/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission | 44 |
| 2011/C 347/78 | Case T-235/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission | 44 |
| 2011/C 347/79 | Case T-255/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Ciga and Others v Commission | 44 |
| 2011/C 347/80 | Case T-266/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission | 44 |
| 2011/C 347/81 | Case T-502/09: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS) | 44 |
| 2011/C 347/82 | Case T-23/11: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh) | 44 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2011/C 347/83 | Case F-87/11: Action brought on 13 September 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX | 45 |
| 2011/C 347/84 | Case F-88/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 45 |
| 2011/C 347/85 | Case F-89/11: Action brought on 18 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions | 45 |
| 2011/C 347/86 | Case F-92/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC | 46 |
| 2011/C 347/87 | Case F-93/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 46 |
| 2011/C 347/88 | Case F-95/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v EIB | 46 |
| 2011/C 347/89 | Case F-97/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament | 47 |
| 2011/C 347/90 | Case F-98/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v European Commission | 47 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2011/C 347/02

Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) (Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches — Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards — Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State — Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State — Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted — Copyright — Television broadcasting right — Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Protection of services based on conditional access — Illicit device — Directive 98/84/EC — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen — Exception to the reproduction right — Communication of works to the public in public houses — Directive 93/83/EEC)

2

2011/C 347/03

Case C-302/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State Aid — Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia — Reductions in social security contributions — Withdrawal)

3

2011/C 347/04

Case C-493/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Free movement of capital — Foreign and national pension funds — Corporation tax — Dividends — Exemption — Difference in treatment)

4

2011/C 347/05

Case C-381/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Industrial Policy — Food hygiene — Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 — Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food)

4

2011/C 347/06

Case C-382/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria)) — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Industrial Policy — Food hygiene — Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 — Self-service retail of bread and bakery products)

5

2011/C 347/07

Case C-421/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab (VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 21(1)(b) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country — Concept of taxable person established abroad)

5

2011/C 347/08

Case C-443/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges — France) — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Importation, by a person resident in a Member State, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — Ecological subsidy — Conditions — Registration certificate attesting to the nature of the demonstration vehicle)

6

2011/C 347/09

Case C-506/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht — Germany) — Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Self-employed frontier workers — Agricultural lease — Agricultural structure — Legislation of a Member State enabling an objection to be made to the contract if the goods produced in national territory by the self employed Swiss frontier farmers are intended to be exported, free of duty, to Switzerland)

6

2011/C 347/10

Case C-364/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

7

2011/C 347/11

Case C-409/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Metropolitan Court lodged on 1 August 2011 — Gábor Csonka and Others v Hungarian State

7

2011/C 347/12

Case C-438/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

8

2011/C 347/13

Case C-439/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2011 by Ziegler SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission

8

2011/C 347/14

Case C-444/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2011 by Team Relocations NV and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08, Team Relocations NV and others v Commission

9

2011/C 347/15

Case C-451/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2011 — Natthaya Dülger v District of Wetterau

10

2011/C 347/16

Case C-455/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Solvay SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-186/06: Solvay SA v European Commission

11

2011/C 347/17

Case C-466/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 9 September 2011 — Gennaro Currà and Others v The Italian Republic

12

2011/C 347/18

Case C-467/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2011 by Audi AG and Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09 Audi AG, Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

12

2011/C 347/19

Case C-473/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

13

2011/C 347/20

Case C-477/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission

13

2011/C 347/21

Case C-483/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu v Romanian State represented by the Ministry for Public Finance

14

2011/C 347/22

Case C-484/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Mariana Budan v Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

15

2011/C 347/23

Case C-487/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

15

2011/C 347/24

Case C-489/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-133/07: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission

15

2011/C 347/25

Case C-492/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA)

16

2011/C 347/26

Case C-493/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission

17

2011/C 347/27

Case C-494/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG v European Commission

18

2011/C 347/28

Case C-498/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

18

2011/C 347/29

Case C-501/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2011 by Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07 Schindler Holding Ltd and Others v European Commission, supported by the Council of the European Union

19

2011/C 347/30

Case C-502/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2011 — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

20

2011/C 347/31

Case C-503/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

21

2011/C 347/32

Case C-504/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

22

2011/C 347/33

Case C-505/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

23

2011/C 347/34

Case C-506/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission

24

2011/C 347/35

Case C-512/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

25

2011/C 347/36

Case C-513/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy

25

General Court

2011/C 347/37

Case T-38/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Agroexpansión v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market sharing — Fines — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

26

2011/C 347/38

Case T-41/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Deterrent effect — Attenuating circumstances)

26

2011/C 347/39

Case T-139/06: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures — Request for payment — Competence of the Commission — Jurisdiction of the General Court)

27

2011/C 347/40

Case T-312/07: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission (Financial contribution granted for an environmental project — LIFE — Decision to recover in part the amount paid out — Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons)

27

2011/C 347/41

Case T-449/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — SLV Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LINE — Earlier national word and figurative marks Line — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

27

2011/C 347/42

Case T-561/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Gutknecht v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Biocidal products — Establishment of a list of active substances on the market — Adoption of regulations by the Commission by virtue of Directive 98/8/EC — Causal link)

28

2011/C 347/43

Case T-393/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark NaViKey — Earlier Community word mark NAVI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Breach of the duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

28

2011/C 347/44

Case T-439/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Purvis v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Additional pension scheme — Refusal to grant a voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum — Plea of illegality — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

28

2011/C 347/45

Case T-53/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division — Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax — Appeal before the Board of Appeal — Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Period for submission — Admissibility of the appeal — Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Correction of a decision — Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)

29

2011/C 347/46

Case T-87/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Chestnut Medical Technologies v OHIM (PIPELINE) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark PIPELINE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

29

2011/C 347/47

Case T-213/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Dismissal — Breakdown of trust — Statement of reasons — Distortion of the evidence)

29

2011/C 347/48

Case T-224/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Association belge des consommateurs test-achats v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Belgian energy market — Decision declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market — Commitments given during the initial phase of the investigation — Decision refusing the partial referral of the merger investigation to the national authorities — Action for annulment — Consumer association — Interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to initiate the in-depth review procedure — Procedural rights — Inadmissibility)

30

2011/C 347/49

Case T-304/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (caldea) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark caldea — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

30

2011/C 347/50

Case T-277/07: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

31

2011/C 347/51

Case T-341/08: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Agreement and withdrawal of application — No need to adjudicate)

31

2011/C 347/52

Case T-96/09: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — UCAPT v Council (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes for farmers — Production aid for tobacco — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Not of individual concern — Inadmissible)

31

2011/C 347/53

Case T-128/09: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 — Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission (State aid — Action for annulment — Applicants’ failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

32

2011/C 347/54

Case T-297/10: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — DBV v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China — Rights of defence — Calculation of normal value — Proportionality — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

32

2011/C 347/55

Case T-149/11: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — GS v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 — Right of the Member States to refuse the reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation — No direct concern — Inadmissible)

32

2011/C 347/56

Case T-206/11: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Complex v OHIM — Kajometal (KX) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

33

2011/C 347/57

Case T-346/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

33

2011/C 347/58

Case T-347/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Rejection of the request for the defence of immunity for a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Inadmissibility)

33

2011/C 347/59

Case T-379/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC — Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

33

2011/C 347/60

Case T-381/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Eurofer v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC — Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

34

2011/C 347/61

Case T-384/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

34

2011/C 347/62

Case T-395/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (Application for interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

34

2011/C 347/63

Case T-421/11 R: Order of the judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 3 October 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

35

2011/C 347/64

Case T-422/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable damage — Lack of urgency)

35

2011/C 347/65

Case T-309/10: Action brought on 15 September 2011 — Klein v Commission

35

2011/C 347/66

Case T-489/11: Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission

36

2011/C 347/67

Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

37

2011/C 347/68

Case T-498/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

37

2011/C 347/69

Case T-503/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Al-Aqsa v Council

38

2011/C 347/70

Case T-508/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — LTTE v Council

39

2011/C 347/71

Case T-512/11: Action brought on 24 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission

40

2011/C 347/72

Case T-516/11: Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission

40

2011/C 347/73

Case T-519/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission

41

2011/C 347/74

Case T-526/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — Igcar Chemicals v ECHA

41

2011/C 347/75

Case T-538/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Belgium v Commission

42

2011/C 347/76

Case T-540/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission

42

2011/C 347/77

Case T-234/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission

44

2011/C 347/78

Case T-235/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission

44

2011/C 347/79

Case T-255/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Ciga and Others v Commission

44

2011/C 347/80

Case T-266/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission

44

2011/C 347/81

Case T-502/09: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)

44

2011/C 347/82

Case T-23/11: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)

44

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2011/C 347/83

Case F-87/11: Action brought on 13 September 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX

45

2011/C 347/84

Case F-88/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

45

2011/C 347/85

Case F-89/11: Action brought on 18 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

45

2011/C 347/86

Case F-92/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC

46

2011/C 347/87

Case F-93/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

46

2011/C 347/88

Case F-95/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v EIB

46

2011/C 347/89

Case F-97/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

47

2011/C 347/90

Case F-98/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v European Commission

47

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/1

---

2011/C 347/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 340, 19.11.2011

Past publications

OJ C 331, 12.11.2011

OJ C 319, 29.10.2011

OJ C 311, 22.10.2011

OJ C 305, 15.10.2011

OJ C 298, 8.10.2011

OJ C 290, 1.10.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)

(Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) (1)

(Satellite broadcasting - Broadcasting of football matches - Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards - Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State - Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State - Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted - Copyright - Television broadcasting right - Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Restriction of competition by object - Protection of services based on conditional access - Illicit device - Directive 98/84/EC - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen - Exception to the reproduction right - Communication of works to the public in public houses - Directive 93/83/EEC)

2011/C 347/02

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants/appellant: Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA (Case C-403/08), Karen Murphy (C-429/08)

Defendants/respondent: QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08), Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division and Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 28, 30, 49 and 81 EC, of Articles 2(a) and (e), 4(a) and 5 of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), of Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10, corrigendum at OJ 2002 L 6, p. 70), of Article 1(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), and of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable transmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Grant, in return for remuneration, of exclusive rights in respect of satellite broadcasting of football matches — Marketing, in the United Kingdom, of decoders lawfully placed on the market in another Member State, making it possible to screen such matches in breach of the exclusive rights granted

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | ‘Illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access must be interpreted as not covering foreign decoding devices (devices which give access to the satellite broadcasting services of a broadcaster, are manufactured and marketed with that broadcaster’s authorisation, but are used, in disregard of its will, outside the geographical area for which they have been issued), foreign decoding devices procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or foreign decoding devices which have been used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access must be interpreted as not covering foreign decoding devices (devices which give access to the satellite broadcasting services of a broadcaster, are manufactured and marketed with that broadcaster’s authorisation, but are used, in disregard of its will, outside the geographical area for which they have been issued), foreign decoding devices procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or foreign decoding devices which have been used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes.

| 2. | Article 3(2) of Directive 98/84 does not preclude national legislation which prevents the use of foreign decoding devices, including those procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or those used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes, since such legislation does not fall within the field coordinated by that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2) of Directive 98/84 does not preclude national legislation which prevents the use of foreign decoding devices, including those procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or those used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes, since such legislation does not fall within the field coordinated by that directive.

| 3. | On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU:






  — | that article precludes legislation of a Member State which makes it unlawful to import into and sell and use in that State foreign decoding devices which give access to an encrypted satellite broadcasting service from another Member State that includes subject-matter protected by the legislation of that first State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU:

—

that article precludes legislation of a Member State which makes it unlawful to import into and sell and use in that State foreign decoding devices which give access to an encrypted satellite broadcasting service from another Member State that includes subject-matter protected by the legislation of that first State;

| — | this conclusion is affected neither by the fact that the foreign decoding device has been procured or enabled by the giving of a false identity and a false address, with the intention of circumventing the territorial restriction in question, nor by the fact that it is used for commercial purposes although it was restricted to private use. |
| --- | --- |

—

this conclusion is affected neither by the fact that the foreign decoding device has been procured or enabled by the giving of a false identity and a false address, with the intention of circumventing the territorial restriction in question, nor by the fact that it is used for commercial purposes although it was restricted to private use.

| 4. | The clauses of an exclusive licence agreement concluded between a holder of intellectual property rights and a broadcaster constitute a restriction on competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU where they oblige the broadcaster not to supply decoding devices enabling access to that right holder’s protected subject-matter with a view to their use outside the territory covered by that licence agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The clauses of an exclusive licence agreement concluded between a holder of intellectual property rights and a broadcaster constitute a restriction on competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU where they oblige the broadcaster not to supply decoding devices enabling access to that right holder’s protected subject-matter with a view to their use outside the territory covered by that licence agreement.

| 5. | Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction right extends to transient fragments of the works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, provided that those fragments contain elements which are the expression of the authors’ own intellectual creation, and the unit composed of the fragments reproduced simultaneously must be examined in order to determine whether it contains such elements. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction right extends to transient fragments of the works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, provided that those fragments contain elements which are the expression of the authors’ own intellectual creation, and the unit composed of the fragments reproduced simultaneously must be examined in order to determine whether it contains such elements.

| 6. | Acts of reproduction such as those at issue in Case C-403/08, which are performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and may therefore be carried out without the authorisation of the copyright holders concerned. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Acts of reproduction such as those at issue in Case C-403/08, which are performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and may therefore be carried out without the authorisation of the copyright holders concerned.

| 7. | ‘Communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers, to the customers present in a public house. |
| --- | --- |

7.

‘Communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers, to the customers present in a public house.

| 8. | Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as not having a bearing on the lawfulness of the acts of reproduction performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as not having a bearing on the lawfulness of the acts of reproduction performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-302/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State Aid - Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia - Reductions in social security contributions - Withdrawal)

2011/C 347/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and G. Aiello, lawyer)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 and, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 and, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the decision;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-493/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Free movement of capital - Foreign and national pension funds - Corporation tax - Dividends - Exemption - Difference in treatment)

2011/C 347/04

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and H. Ferreira, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 63 TFEU and of Article 40 EEA — Restrictions on movements of capital — Foreign and national pension funds — Dividends — Taxation — Difference in treatment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | By reserving the benefit of the corporation tax exemption to pension funds resident in Portuguese territory alone, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By reserving the benefit of the corporation tax exemption to pension funds resident in Portuguese territory alone, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-381/10) (1)

(Industrial Policy - Food hygiene - Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food)

2011/C 347/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astrid Preissl KEG

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1) and in particular of the word Handwaschbecken (washbasin for cleaning hands) contained in the German language version of that provision — Administrative decision of a Member State ordering the installation in the toilets of a café of a washbasin equipped with materials for hygienic washing and drying of hands

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as not requiring that a washbasin within the meaning of that provision be used exclusively for washing hands or that it be possible to use the water tap or hand-drying material without touching by hand.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria)) — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-382/10) (1)

(Industrial Policy - Food hygiene - Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - Self-service retail of bread and bakery products)

2011/C 347/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1) — Protection of foodstuffs against contamination — Self-service retail of bread and bakery products — Administrative decision by a Member State ordering the installation of a technical device preventing customers from replacing goods after having touched them by hand

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, with regard to containers used for self-service retail of bread and bakery products, the fact that a potential purchaser could conceivably have touched the foodstuffs offered for sale by hand or sneezed on them does not make it possible, on that basis alone, to hold that those foodstuffs were not protected against any contamination likely to render them unfit for human consumption, injurious to health or contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect them to be consumed in that state.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab

(Case C-421/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 21(1)(b) - Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes - Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country - Concept of ‘taxable person established abroad’)

2011/C 347/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Deggendorf

Respondent: Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same Member State as the recipients of those services but having established the seat of his economic activity in another Member State — Concept of a ‘taxable person established abroad’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for him to be considered a ‘taxable person who is not established within the territory of the country’, it is sufficient that the taxable person should have established the seat of his economic activity outside that country.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges — France) — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement

(Case C-443/10) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Importation, by a person resident in a Member State, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State - Ecological subsidy - Conditions - Registration certificate attesting to the nature of the demonstration vehicle)

2011/C 347/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philippe Bonnarde

Defendant: Agence de Services et de Paiement

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administrative de Limoges — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57), amended by Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 (OJ 2004 L 10, p. 29) — Importation, by a person resident in France, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — National legislation making the grant of an environmental subsidy subject to presentation of a registration certificate bearing the statement ‘demonstration vehicle’ — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State from requiring, for the award of the subsidy known as the ‘bonus écologique — Grenelle de l’environnement’ to imported demonstration motor vehicles at the time of registration in that Member State, that the first registration document of those vehicles bear the words ‘demonstration vehicle’.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht — Germany) — Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

(Case C-506/10) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Agricultural lease - Agricultural structure - Legislation of a Member State enabling an objection to be made to the contract if the goods produced in national territory by the self employed Swiss frontier farmers are intended to be exported, free of duty, to Switzerland)

2011/C 347/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel

Defendant: Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen, Landwirtschaftsgericht — Interpretation of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Objection by the competent authority of a Member State to an agricultural tenancy agreement in respect of agricultural land in that State and concluded with a Swiss farmer whose business is established in Switzerland — National legislation allowing such an objection, on the ground of a distortion of competition, in respect of land used for the production of agricultural products to be exported free of duty outside the internal market

Operative part

The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authority of that Member State may object to an agricultural lease — relating to land located in a given area of the territory of that Member State and concluded between a resident of that Member State and a frontier-zone resident of the other contracting party — on the grounds that the land leased is used for producing agricultural products intended for export, free of duty, outside the internal market of the European Union and so gives rise to distortion of competition, if the application of that legislation affects a much greater number of nationals of the other Contracting Party than nationals of the Member State on whose territory that legislation applies. It is for the national court to determine whether that latter situation in fact exists.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest, Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

(Case C-364/11)

2011/C 347/10

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Abed El Karem El Kott Mostafa, Chadi Amin A Radi, Kamel Ismail Hazem

Defendants: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztosság

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive?

| 2. | Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Metropolitan Court lodged on 1 August 2011 — Gábor Csonka and Others v Hungarian State

(Case C-409/11)

2011/C 347/11

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh

Defendant: Hungarian State

Questions referred

| 1. | At the time when the applicants caused the damage had the Hungarian State implemented Directive 72/166/EC (1) having particular regard to the obligations set out in Article 3 of that directive? Must the directive thus be declared to have direct effect as regards the applicants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

At the time when the applicants caused the damage had the Hungarian State implemented Directive 72/166/EC (1) having particular regard to the obligations set out in Article 3 of that directive? Must the directive thus be declared to have direct effect as regards the applicants?

| 2. | According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that the State did not implement Directive 72/1966/EEC require that State to comply with the provisions of the directive by relying directly on the Community legislation vis-à-vis that negligent State in order to obtain the guarantees which that State should have offered him? |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that the State did not implement Directive 72/1966/EEC require that State to comply with the provisions of the directive by relying directly on the Community legislation vis-à-vis that negligent State in order to obtain the guarantees which that State should have offered him?

| 3. | According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that Directive 72/166/EEC has not been implemented claim compensation for damage from the State responsible for that failure to implement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that Directive 72/166/EEC has not been implemented claim compensation for damage from the State responsible for that failure to implement?

| 4. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the Hungarian State have a responsibility to pay compensation for damage both to the applicants and to those injured in road traffic accidents caused by the applicants?
  The relevant wording of the Directive is as follows: ‘Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the Community [as regards the damage caused]’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the Hungarian State have a responsibility to pay compensation for damage both to the applicants and to those injured in road traffic accidents caused by the applicants?

The relevant wording of the Directive is as follows: ‘Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the Community [as regards the damage caused]’.

| 5. | Can the State be held responsible if a drafting error in the legislation caused the damage? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the State be held responsible if a drafting error in the legislation caused the damage?

| 6. | Is Government Decree No 190/2004 of 8 June on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (190/2004. (VI.8) Korm. rendelet a gépjármű üzembentartójának kötelező felelősségbiztosításról), in force until 1 January 2010, compatible with the content of Council Directive 72/166/EEC, or has Hungary failed to transpose into Hungarian law the obligations laid down in that Directive? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Government Decree No 190/2004 of 8 June on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (190/2004. (VI.8) Korm. rendelet a gépjármű üzembentartójának kötelező felelősségbiztosításról), in force until 1 January 2010, compatible with the content of Council Directive 72/166/EEC, or has Hungary failed to transpose into Hungarian law the obligations laid down in that Directive?

---

(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition: Series I Chapter 1972(II) p. 360).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-438/11)

2011/C 347/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, in which the authority of the third country can no longer verify whether the certificate issued by it is based on a correct account of the facts, is the person liable for payment to be denied the protection of legitimate expectations provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) where the circumstances on account of which it is impossible to clarify whether the content of the certificate of origin is correct fall within the sphere of control of the exporter, or is the transfer of the burden of proof, in the context of the third subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, from the customs authority to the person liable for payment subject only, or rather, to the condition that clarification is impossible because it is outside the control of the authority in the exporting country or caused by the negligence of the exporter alone?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) in the version as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/8

---

Appeal brought on 25 August 2011 by Ziegler SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission

(Case C-439/11 P)

2011/C 347/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ziegler SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart, A. Bailleux, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | declare that the present appeal is admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the present appeal is admissible and well-founded;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission, and give final judgment itself on the subject-matter of the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission, and give final judgment itself on the subject-matter of the dispute;

| — | grant the form of order sought at first instance, and, therefore, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services market, or, in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the appellant in that decision, or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce that fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought at first instance, and, therefore, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services market, or, in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the appellant in that decision, or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce that fine;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant contends that the General Court made several errors in law in that it found in the judgment under appeal that the Commission was lawfully entitled to conclude, by applying its Guidelines on the concept of the effect on trade between Member States, that the infringement which the appellant was found to have committed was liable to have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court misapplied European Union (‘EU’) law, in particular Article 296 TFEU, the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, when it held that the Commission did not fail in its obligation to state reasons by relying only on the ‘very serious’ nature of the infringement in order to determine the percentage of sales in relation to the infringement used to calculate the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in accordance with Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

By its third ground of appeal, the company Ziegler contends that the judgment under appeal is affected by defects in its reasoning in that it does not deal with the plea alleging that the Commission lacked objective impartiality and infringes the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the fundamental right to sound administration by disregarding that plea.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims, lastly, that the judgment under appeal infringes EU law, and in particular the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, in that, while acknowledging that the Commission did not properly analyse the appellant’s financial situation, it does not call into question the fact that the Commission did not even consider the possibility of allowing the appellant to benefit from a reduction of the fine on the basis of paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, even though it reduced the fine of another undertaking penalised for the same infringement pursuant to the above-mentioned paragraph.

---

(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).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/9

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2011 by Team Relocations NV and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08, Team Relocations NV and others v Commission

(Case C-444/11 P)

2011/C 347/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011, in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011, in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08,

| — | in the event that the Court decides to apply Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute,






  — | annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, insofar as it declares that Appellants infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January 1997- September 2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the event that the Court decides to apply Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute,

—

annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, insofar as it declares that Appellants infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January 1997- September 2003;

| — | annul Article 2 of the same Decision in so far as it imposes on Appellants a fine of EUR 3,49 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the same Decision in so far as it imposes on Appellants a fine of EUR 3,49 million;

| — | in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on Appellants by the aforementioned Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on Appellants by the aforementioned Decision;

| — | further in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the same Decision in so far as it holds Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd jointly and severally liable for an amount of EUR 1 300,000; |
| --- | --- |

—

further in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the same Decision in so far as it holds Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd jointly and severally liable for an amount of EUR 1 300,000;

| — | further in the alternative, to order the Commission to disclose the factors which it has taken into account in awarding Interdean NV a 70 % reduction of the fine that otherwise would have been imposed on Interdean, and to subsequently allow Team Relocations an opportunity to explain in writing why these reasons also apply to its own situation, |
| --- | --- |

—

further in the alternative, to order the Commission to disclose the factors which it has taken into account in awarding Interdean NV a 70 % reduction of the fine that otherwise would have been imposed on Interdean, and to subsequently allow Team Relocations an opportunity to explain in writing why these reasons also apply to its own situation,

| — | in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

First plea, violation of Article 101 TFEU and the Court of Justice’s case law on that provision, distortion of evidence, violation of the rules regarding the burden of proof and the duty to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal declares Team Relocations liable for the ‘single and continuous infringement’ referred to in Article 1 of the Decision between January 1997 and September 2003.

Second plea, violation of point 13 of the Commission’s 2006 fining guidelines, violation of the rules regarding the burden of proof, the in dubio pro reo and nulla poena sine culpa principles in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the basic amount of Appellants’ fine may be computed on the basis of turnover to which Team Relocations’ alleged infringement did non relate.

Third plea, violation of the principle of equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and violation of the Court’s case law giving effect to these principles, violation of the duty to state reasons and the rules regarding the burden of proof in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the Decision could apply, with respect to Team relocations, a percentage of 17 % in calculating the basic amount of its fine.

Fourth plea, violation of the duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality and Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the Decision could multiply Team Relocations’ percentage of the ‘value of sales’ by the number of years during which it participated in the infringement.

Fifth plea, violation of the patere legem quam ipse fecisti principle and the duty to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the imposition of an additional amount of 17 % on the Team Relocations was justified.

Sixth plea, violation of Article 101 TFEU of the Court of Justice’s case law on that provision, the duty to state reasons, the patere legem quam ipse fecisti principle and distortion of evidence, in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the Decision correctly held that there exist no mitigating circumstances that warrant a substantial reduction of appellants’ fine.

Seventh plea, violation of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of non-discrimination and the duty to state reason in so far as the judgment under appeal holds Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd jointly and severally liable for an amount of EUR 1 300,000.

Eighth plea, violation of the principle of proportionality and the duty to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the fine as imposed on Team Relocations satisfies the proportionality requirement.

Ninth plea, violation of the principle of non-discrimination, the duty to state reasons and the patere legem quam ipse fecisti principle in as far the judgment under appeal rejects Team Relocations’ eighth plea and in as far as it rejects Team Relocations’ request to order the Commission to disclose the reasons on the basis of which it granted Interdean a 70 % reduction in its fine.

---

(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 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 1, p. 1.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2011 — Natthaya Dülger v District of Wetterau

(Case C-451/11)

2011/C 347/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Natthaya Dülger

Defendant: District of Wetterau

Question referred

May a Thai national, who was married to a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and who, after receiving authorisation to join him, lived with him without interruption for more than three years, rely on the rights arising from the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, with the consequence that she has a right of residence because of the direct effect of that provision?

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/11

---

Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Solvay SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-186/06: Solvay SA v European Commission

(Case C-455/11 P)

2011/C 347/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, M. O'Regan, solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | quash paragraphs 121 to 170 of the judgment, |
| --- | --- |

—

quash paragraphs 121 to 170 of the judgment,

| — | quash paragraphs 394,395 and 402 to 427 of the judgment, |
| --- | --- |

—

quash paragraphs 394,395 and 402 to 427 of the judgment,

| — | give final judgment and to annul the contested Decision in so far as it found that (a) the Appellant infringed Article 81 (1) EC between May 1995 and August 1997 and (b) the Appellant was the third undertaking to satisfy the requirements of point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, and to reduce accordingly the fine imposed upon the Appellant, or, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court, and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment and to annul the contested Decision in so far as it found that (a) the Appellant infringed Article 81 (1) EC between May 1995 and August 1997 and (b) the Appellant was the third undertaking to satisfy the requirements of point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, and to reduce accordingly the fine imposed upon the Appellant, or, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon two pleas in law. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court partially dismissed the application brought by the Appellant for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate).

By its first plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court's conclusion that the Appellant had participated in an infringement of Articles 81(1) EC and 53(1) EEA between May 1995 and August 1997. The General Court exceeded its powers of review and committed an error of law in concluding that the Appellant had discussed and/or exchanged pricing information and its commercial strategy with other undertakings: such findings could not be made on the basis of the text of the contested Decision. The General Court committed errors in law in upholding the finding in the contested Decision that, by having a common intention to restrict competition, the discussions, negotiations and exchanges of information between hydrogen peroxide manufacturers (including the Appellant) in an unsuccessful attempt to establish a market-sharing arrangement (which did not result in the conclusion of an agreement between them) constituted an infringement of Articles 81(1) EC and 53(1) EEA on the basis that they were, alternatively, either preparatory negotiations for and formed part of the same collusive arrangement as an admitted price-fixing cartel entered into in August 1997 or a concerted practice by virtue of ‘preparing the ground’ for that later cartel and/or constituting a prohibited exchange of information between undertakings. By its second plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court's conclusion that the Commission had not exceeded the margins of its appreciation in finding, in the contested Decision, that another undertaking, Arkema, had met the requirements of point 21 of the Commission's 2002 Leniency Notice on 3 April 2003. The General Court erred in law in defining and applying the concept of ‘significant added value’ and distorted and committed manifest errors of assessment of the evidence, in finding that documents faxed by Arkema on 3 April 2003 without any accompanying explanations represented significant added value under point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice. It also committed manifest errors of law and procedure and distorted the evidence in concluding that the Commission was entitled in the contested Decision to reach a different conclusion from that reached by it in Decision C(2006) 2098 of 31 May 2006 concerning a procedure under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMPlF.38.645 — Methacrylates), in which it found that the same fax of 3 April 2003 of Arkema (which concerned Commission investigations into several suspected cartels, including HP and methacrylates) did not satisfy the requirements of point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice until explanations were subsequently provided by Arkema.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 9 September 2011 — Gennaro Currà and Others v The Italian Republic

(Case C-466/11)

2011/C 347/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gennaro Currà and Others

Defendants: The Italian Republic

Questions referred

| 1. | On the basis of the international obligations resting upon Germany (Articles 2 and 5(2) of the London Agreement, etc.), are the alleged civil immunity from the Italian courts in relation to the facts of the present case, which, from 11 March 2004 onwards (the judgment in Ferrini), Germany may no longer claim, and the agreement reached with the Italian Government on 18 November 2008 in Trieste to initiate proceedings before the International Court (No 143/2008 General list), together with the related Italian Law No 89/2010, which renders unenforceable Italian judgments based on serious crimes against humanity, inconsistent with Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of the international obligations resting upon Germany (Articles 2 and 5(2) of the London Agreement, etc.), are the alleged civil immunity from the Italian courts in relation to the facts of the present case, which, from 11 March 2004 onwards (the judgment in Ferrini), Germany may no longer claim, and the agreement reached with the Italian Government on 18 November 2008 in Trieste to initiate proceedings before the International Court (No 143/2008 General list), together with the related Italian Law No 89/2010, which renders unenforceable Italian judgments based on serious crimes against humanity, inconsistent with Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000?

| 2. | Is the application of Article 7 of the Reichsbeamtenhaftungsgesetz (judgment of 26 June 2003, AZ. III ZR 245/98) and of the Bundensverfassungsgericht (judgment of 15 February 2006, AZ. 2 Bvr 1476/03) relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which prevents European citizens from obtaining compensation from Germany, inconsistent with Article 2 of the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts; did it undermine the plaintiffs’ rights under Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000 until 11 March 2004 (the judgment in Ferrini), and is reliance on a time bar therefore inconsistent with European Union obligations and, in particular, Articles 3 and 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, of the Treaty of Lisbon and with the principle non conceditur contra venire factum proprio? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the application of Article 7 of the Reichsbeamtenhaftungsgesetz (judgment of 26 June 2003, AZ. III ZR 245/98) and of the Bundensverfassungsgericht (judgment of 15 February 2006, AZ. 2 Bvr 1476/03) relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which prevents European citizens from obtaining compensation from Germany, inconsistent with Article 2 of the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts; did it undermine the plaintiffs’ rights under Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000 until 11 March 2004 (the judgment in Ferrini), and is reliance on a time bar therefore inconsistent with European Union obligations and, in particular, Articles 3 and 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, of the Treaty of Lisbon and with the principle non conceditur contra venire factum proprio?

| 3. | Is the objection of immunity raised by the Federal Republic of Germany inconsistent with Articles 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, and 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon in that they preclude civil liability based on common European principles (Article 340) on the part of that defendant in relation to the violations of international law (the prohibition on slavery and forced labour) which it committed against the citizens of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the objection of immunity raised by the Federal Republic of Germany inconsistent with Articles 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, and 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon in that they preclude civil liability based on common European principles (Article 340) on the part of that defendant in relation to the violations of international law (the prohibition on slavery and forced labour) which it committed against the citizens of another Member State?

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/12

---

Appeal brought on 9 September 2011 by Audi AG and Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09 Audi AG, Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-467/11 P)

2011/C 347/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Audi AG, Volkswagen AG (represented by: P. Kather, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09;

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 in Case R 226/2007-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 in Case R 226/2007-1;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal infringes Article 7(1)(c) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark (‘Regulation No 207/2009’) (1) as substantive Community law was applied incorrectly. The sign TDI is not descriptive. The General Court incorrectly proceeded on the basis that the public concerned would immediately and without further thought assume that the sign TDI is an abbreviation of a technical characteristic. That is incorrect as TDI is, on the one hand, not an abbreviation and there is, on the other hand, a multitude of expansions for such an abbreviation. Therefore the requirement of understanding ‘immediately and without further thought’ is not fulfilled. Furthermore, the appellants take the view that there is infringement of the principle in the first part of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, which provides that OHIM is to examine the facts of its own motion, as OHIM neglected to prove that an absolute ground for refusal exists.

In addition, there is infringement of the principle of equal treatment as there is a direct and specific relationship between the sign TDI and the registered signs CDI and HDI which demands that they be treated equally. No such equal treatment exists here as TDI is not registered.

The judgment under appeal also infringes Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 because, on the one hand, evidence that the mark has been accepted throughout the Community is not required and, on the other hand, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the underlying facts. Evidence is not required because the case-law of the Court in Pago
   (2) in respect of Article 9 of Regulation No 207/2009 is applicable to Article 7 of that regulation. Over and above that, relevant evidence of the acceptance of the mark was adduced, in the assessment of which the General Court erred in law. In particular, the General Court failed to appreciate the evidential value of national registrations. In addition, the General Court did not take into account the large market shares and high sales figures in respect of TDI vehicles and it therefore overlooked the associated advertising effect in its legal assessment.

Lastly, the General Court erred in law by stating that the sign TDI is not used as a mark. That is incorrect and infringes Community law as the sign TDI is used as a mark in every form of use.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2009 in Case C-301/07 PAGO International [2009] ECR I-9429.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/13

---

Action brought on 16 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-473/11)

2011/C 347/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by applying a special VAT scheme for travel agents as provided for in resolution No B71/2260 of March 1971, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43, 96, 98 and 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by applying a special VAT scheme for travel agents as provided for in resolution No B71/2260 of March 1971, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43, 96, 98 and 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (1);

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the Netherlands has failed to implement the special VAT scheme for travel agents. This is apparent from Decision No B71/2260 of 22 March 1971, as last amended, which clearly conflicts with the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/13

---

Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-477/11 P)

2011/C 347/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC, J. Stratford, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant asks that:

| — | The order of the General Court be set aside; |
| --- | --- |

—

The order of the General Court be set aside;

| — | Sepracor's action for annulment be declared admissible and the case be determined in Sepracor's favour (on the essential procedural requirement point) and/or referred back to the GC so that it may examine the substance of the action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Sepracor's action for annulment be declared admissible and the case be determined in Sepracor's favour (on the essential procedural requirement point) and/or referred back to the GC so that it may examine the substance of the action for annulment;

| — | The Commission be ordered to pay Sepracor's costs of the present proceedings and those arising at the first instance relating to the plea of inadmissibility; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission be ordered to pay Sepracor's costs of the present proceedings and those arising at the first instance relating to the plea of inadmissibility; and

| — | The costs be reserved as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

—

The costs be reserved as to the remainder.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the contested order dismissing the Appellant' action as inadmissible should be set aside on the following two grounds:

| (a) | Contravention of the Appellant's rights to access to justice and an effective remedy |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Contravention of the Appellant's rights to access to justice and an effective remedy

| (b) | Infringement of an essential procedural requirement arising out of reliance on third party representations, a plea raised before the General Court but not considered by it. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Infringement of an essential procedural requirement arising out of reliance on third party representations, a plea raised before the General Court but not considered by it.

Infringement of essential procedural requirement

The General Court failed even to address Sepracor's submission as to infringement of an essential procedural requirement arising out of the reliance on third party representations. The failure to inform Sepracor of representations which had been received and taken into account until after a decision had been issued resulted in a breach of the right to be heard, which is a fundamental principle of EU law.

Contravention of rights to access to justice and an effective remedy

The Appellant submitted in July 2007 an application for a centralised marketing authorisation for its product Lunivia, backed by extensive and expensive research, on the basis that Lunivia was eligible for centralised assessment as a new active substance (‘NAS’) in accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) 726/2004 (1). There were at least substantial reasons for contending that the Appellant's product Lunivia was a new active substance (‘NAS’) and it was accepted for assessment centrally on that basis by EMA.

The contested decision amounted to a final determination by the Commission that Lunivia would not be treated as a NAS (and was thus the functional equivalent of a negative decision on eligibility). That decision had legal consequences, notably the removal of the protection from cross-reference by generic second applicants and from the exploitation of copy authorisations for a total period of 10 years.

In the circumstances, the Appellant had no choice but to withdraw its application. To allow a centralised marketing authorisation to be granted without the protection for its dossier of research that follows from the grant of NAS status would have enabled immediate reliance by generic applicants across the EU on all the valuable pre-clinical and clinical data on the Appellant's dossier. No innovative pharmaceutical company could have contemplated allowing this to happen. The ‘remedies’ of an application for annulment and interim relief would have been ineffective, since they could not have reversed these irrevocable consequences.

The only prospect for a practical and effective remedy (as opposed to a theoretical and illusory one) therefore lies in permitting a challenge to be brought to the contested decision.

In that respect, the Appellant relies, inter alia, upon:

| (a) | The right to access to justice and to an effective remedy, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 6 and 13 and by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights |
| --- | --- |

(a)

The right to access to justice and to an effective remedy, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 6 and 13 and by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

| (b) | The requirement that procedural rules governing actions brought before the courts of the Union be interpreted consistently with those principles |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The requirement that procedural rules governing actions brought before the courts of the Union be interpreted consistently with those principles

| (c) | The case law of the European Court of Human Rights and of national courts |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights and of national courts

| (d) | Policy considerations relating to the interrelationship of the centralised procedure and national procedures |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Policy considerations relating to the interrelationship of the centralised procedure and national procedures

| (e) | The case law of the Court of Justice concerning:






  1. | the separation of powers |
| --- | --- | --- |

(e)

The case law of the Court of Justice concerning:

1.

the separation of powers

| 2. | the admissibility of challenges to acts forming the culmination of a special and distinct procedure |
| --- | --- |

2.

the admissibility of challenges to acts forming the culmination of a special and distinct procedure

| 3. | the existence of adequate legal protection |
| --- | --- |

3.

the existence of adequate legal protection

| 4. | the disclosure of confidential information. |
| --- | --- |

4.

the disclosure of confidential information.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency

OJ L 136, p. 1

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu v Romanian State represented by the Ministry for Public Finance

(Case C-483/11)

2011/C 347/21

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu

Defendant: Romanian State represented by the Ministry of Public Finance

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Article 5 of Law No 221/2009, as amended by decision No 1358 of the Constitutional Court of Romania of 21 October 2010, infringe Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Article 5 of Law No 221/2009, as amended by decision No 1358 of the Constitutional Court of Romania of 21 October 2010, infringe Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

| 2. | Do Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights preclude national legislation which, in the case of the politically-motivated conviction of an individual by a decision contrary to law, allows that individual’s right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered to be limited? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights preclude national legislation which, in the case of the politically-motivated conviction of an individual by a decision contrary to law, allows that individual’s right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered to be limited?

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Mariana Budan v Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

(Case C-484/11)

2011/C 347/22

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mariana Budan

Defendant: Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice (Ministry for Public Finance) represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice (Directorate General for Public Finance), Argeș

Intervener: Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu

Question referred

In the interpretation given by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the fundamental principles laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the Treaties of the European Union — and in the absence of any domestic legislation (as result of the declaration that Article 5 of Law No 221/[2009] is unconstitutional) — are the applicant, Mariana Budan, ... and the intervener, Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu ... entitled to compensation for non-material damage as victims of the Communist regime and now citizens of the European Union?

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-487/11)

2011/C 347/23

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Does Article 7(1) of Regulation No 918/83 (1) preclude the owner of a private car imported into the European Union from a third country from transferring the car, for use free of charge, to a family member who has actually moved his residence from that third country to the European Union and who formed part of a household with the owner of the car in that third country before the car was imported into the European Union, where the car owner has essentially remained in the third country since the vehicle was imported?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/15

---

Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-133/07: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-489/11 P)

2011/C 347/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (represented by: R. Denton, Solicitor, J. J Vyavaharkar, Solicitor, K. Haegeman, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses Melco's application before the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses Melco's application before the General Court,

| — | Annul those articles of the decision which have not already been annulled by the judgment, to the extent that they apply to Melco and to TMT&D for the period for which Melco shares joint and several liability with Toshiba for the activities of TMT&D, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul those articles of the decision which have not already been annulled by the judgment, to the extent that they apply to Melco and to TMT&D for the period for which Melco shares joint and several liability with Toshiba for the activities of TMT&D,

| — | In any event, order that the Commission pays its own costs and Melco's costs in connection with these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order that the Commission pays its own costs and Melco's costs in connection with these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court has made significant legal errors in assessing the evidence regarding the existence of the alleged ‘common understanding’:

| — | The General Court distorts the information in relation to the existence of the ‘common understanding’. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court distorts the information in relation to the existence of the ‘common understanding’.

| — | The General Court has failed to apply the correct standard for review of evidence and misapplied the case law principle that statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant must in principle be regarded as particularly reliable. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has failed to apply the correct standard for review of evidence and misapplied the case law principle that statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant must in principle be regarded as particularly reliable.

| — | The General Court has misapplied the case law on standard and weighting of evidence in concluding that Mr. M's statement is credible and of probative value. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has misapplied the case law on standard and weighting of evidence in concluding that Mr. M's statement is credible and of probative value.

| — | The General Court misapplies the law on corroboration to Fuji's reply to the Statement of Objections. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misapplies the law on corroboration to Fuji's reply to the Statement of Objections.

| — | The General Court has failed to consider the overall effect of the individual breaches by the Commission of Melco's rights of defence and right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has failed to consider the overall effect of the individual breaches by the Commission of Melco's rights of defence and right to a fair hearing.

| — | The General Court has breached Melco's rights of defence, in particular the presumption of innocence, by requiring Melco to prove a negative to show that it did not commit an infringement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has breached Melco's rights of defence, in particular the presumption of innocence, by requiring Melco to prove a negative to show that it did not commit an infringement.

| — | The General Court has breached the presumption of innocence and misapplied legal principles by refusing to consider the alternative plausible explanation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has breached the presumption of innocence and misapplied legal principles by refusing to consider the alternative plausible explanation.

The appellant also submits that the General Court has made serious legal errors in assessing the purported duration of the alleged infringement:

| — | The General Court has failed to prove the purported duration of the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has failed to prove the purported duration of the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA)

(Case C-492/11)

2011/C 347/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ciro Di Donna

Defendant: Società Imballaggi Metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA)

Questions referred

Do Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000, as adopted at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007, Directive 2008/52/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, the general European Union law principle of effective judicial protection and, in general, European Union law as a whole prevent the introduction in a Member State of the European Union of a set of rules such as that established in Italy by Legislative Decree No 28/2010 and Ministerial Decree No 180/2010, as amended by Ministerial Decree No 145/2011, under which:

| — | a court hearing subsequent legal proceedings may infer evidence against a party who, without valid reason, has failed to participate in compulsory mediation; |
| --- | --- |

—

a court hearing subsequent legal proceedings may infer evidence against a party who, without valid reason, has failed to participate in compulsory mediation;

| — | where legal proceedings brought after the rejection of a settlement proposal are concluded by a judgment in precisely the same terms as those of the rejected proposal, the court must disallow recovery of the costs sustained by a successful party who rejected the settlement proposal in respect of the period following the making of the proposal and must order that party to pay the costs of the unsuccessful party in respect of the same period and to make a further payment to the state treasury in the same amount as that already paid in respect of fees (contributo unificato) (lump sum payment in respect of court fees relating to the case payable on instituting proceedings); |
| --- | --- |

—

where legal proceedings brought after the rejection of a settlement proposal are concluded by a judgment in precisely the same terms as those of the rejected proposal, the court must disallow recovery of the costs sustained by a successful party who rejected the settlement proposal in respect of the period following the making of the proposal and must order that party to pay the costs of the unsuccessful party in respect of the same period and to make a further payment to the state treasury in the same amount as that already paid in respect of fees (contributo unificato) (lump sum payment in respect of court fees relating to the case payable on instituting proceedings);

| — | where there are serious and exceptional reasons, a court may disallow recovery of the costs incurred by the successful party in respect of the remuneration paid to the mediator and the fees of any expert, even where the judgment concluding legal proceedings is not in exactly the same terms as those of the settlement proposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

where there are serious and exceptional reasons, a court may disallow recovery of the costs incurred by the successful party in respect of the remuneration paid to the mediator and the fees of any expert, even where the judgment concluding legal proceedings is not in exactly the same terms as those of the settlement proposal;

| — | the court must order any party who has failed without valid reason to participate in mediation to pay to the state treasury a sum equal to the contributo unificato payable in respect of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

the court must order any party who has failed without valid reason to participate in mediation to pay to the state treasury a sum equal to the contributo unificato payable in respect of the proceedings;

| — | the mediator may, or must, make a proposal for conciliation even in the absence of any agreement between the parties and even where the parties fail to participate in mediation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the mediator may, or must, make a proposal for conciliation even in the absence of any agreement between the parties and even where the parties fail to participate in mediation;

| — | the period within which the attempt at mediation must be completed may be up to four months; |
| --- | --- |

—

the period within which the attempt at mediation must be completed may be up to four months;

| — | an action may be proceeded with, even after expiry of the period of four months from the commencement of the mediation procedure, only after a report confirming that no agreement has been reached has been obtained from the secretariat of the mediation body concerned, drafted by the mediator and setting out the proposal that has been rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

an action may be proceeded with, even after expiry of the period of four months from the commencement of the mediation procedure, only after a report confirming that no agreement has been reached has been obtained from the secretariat of the mediation body concerned, drafted by the mediator and setting out the proposal that has been rejected;

| — | there may be more than one attempt at mediation — and the period allowed for resolving the dispute will be multiplied accordingly — whenever a new application is legitimately made in the course of legal proceedings that have, in the meantime, been instituted; |
| --- | --- |

—

there may be more than one attempt at mediation — and the period allowed for resolving the dispute will be multiplied accordingly — whenever a new application is legitimately made in the course of legal proceedings that have, in the meantime, been instituted;

| — | the costs of compulsory mediation are at least twice those of the legal proceedings that mediation is designed to avoid, a disparity which increases exponentially as the amount involved in the case increases (to such an extent that the costs of mediation may reach more than six times those of legal proceedings) and the complexity of the case increases (such as to require the appointment of an expert, paid by the parties to the mediation, to assist the mediator in disputes that call for specific technical knowledge, even though any technical report prepared by the expert and the information he has obtained may not be used in any subsequent legal proceedings)?’ |
| --- | --- |

—

the costs of compulsory mediation are at least twice those of the legal proceedings that mediation is designed to avoid, a disparity which increases exponentially as the amount involved in the case increases (to such an extent that the costs of mediation may reach more than six times those of legal proceedings) and the complexity of the case increases (such as to require the appointment of an expert, paid by the parties to the mediation, to assist the mediator in disputes that call for specific technical knowledge, even though any technical report prepared by the expert and the information he has obtained may not be used in any subsequent legal proceedings)?’

---

(1)  OJ L 136, p. 3.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/17

---

Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-493/11 P)

2011/C 347/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: United Technologies Corp. (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, C.J. Cook, advocate, D. Gerard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment,

| — | based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the Appellant disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to impute liability to UTC for the conduct of GTO and the Otis subsidiaries. The plea is dived into three limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law by failing to comply with the legal test provided for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability arising from 100 % ownership of subsidiaries by a parent company. Second, the General Court's interpretation of the legal test for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in addressing the specific rebuttals of the presumption of imputability raised by UTC.

By its second plea, the Appellant claims that the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning and committed an error of law by omitting to address UTC's claim of breach of equal treatment with MEC.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/18

---

Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG v European Commission

(Case C-494/11 P)

2011/C 347/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, C.J. Cook, advocate, D. Gerard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment,

| — | based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By their first plea, the Appellants dispute the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to impute liability for GTO's infringement in Luxembourg to Otis SA. This plea is divided into four limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law by misapplying the legal standard set forth by this Court in C-97/08 P, Akzo Nobel/Commission and the notion of single undertaking. Second, the General Court exceeded its competence by relying on factual elements that were not referred to by the Commission in the Decision and not included in the Commission's case file. Third, the General Court mischaracterized the nature and scope of the legal relationship between GTO and Otis SA, and distorted the facts. Fourth, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in dismissing the breach by the Commission of its duty to treat equally the parent companies of GTO and MEE.

By their second plea, the Appellants claim that the General Court committed various errors of law in upholding the calculation of the starting amount of the fine for the German infringement. This plea is divided into two limbs. First, the General Court misinterpreted the 1998 Fining Guidelines by considering that the Commission was not required to take into account the size of the affected market when setting the starting amount of the fine. Second, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in relation to the determination of the size of the affected market and the division of the participants into categories.

By their third plea, the Appellants assert that the General Court made various errors of law and exceeded its competence in denying to Otis the benefit of ‘partial immunity’ pursuant to the last paragraph of point 23(b) of the 2002 Leniency Notice. This plea is divided into two limbs. First, the General Court failed to apply the correct legal test for granting ‘partial immunity’, exceeded its competence by substituting its own assessment of the evidence submitted by Otis to that of the Commission and disregarded settled rules of evidence. Second, the General Court misinterpreted the Commission's duty to state reasons.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/18

---

Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-498/11 P)

2011/C 347/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, A. Dawes, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event,

| — | award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court committed several errors in law when it rejected its claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision:

| a) | it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding; |
| --- | --- |

a)

it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding;

| b) | it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding; |
| --- | --- |

b)

it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding;

| c) | it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and |
| --- | --- |

c)

it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and

| d) | it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements. |
| --- | --- |

d)

it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/19

---

Appeal brought on 28 September 2011 by Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07 Schindler Holding Ltd and Others v European Commission, supported by the Council of the European Union

(Case C-501/11 P)

2011/C 347/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH (represented by: R. Bechtold and W. Bosch, Rechtsanwälte, and Professor Dr J. Schwarze)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07;

| 2. | annul the decision of the Commission of 21 February 2007 (COMP/E-1/38.823 — lifts and escalators),
  in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants in that decision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the decision of the Commission of 21 February 2007 (COMP/E-1/38.823 — lifts and escalators),

in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants in that decision;

| 3. | in the alternative to points 1 and 2 above, refer the matter back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the legal appraisal in the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3.

in the alternative to points 1 and 2 above, refer the matter back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the legal appraisal in the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| 4. | in any event, order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

in any event, order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants raise a total of 13 pleas in law in support of their appeal:

| — | First, the General Court has infringed the principle of separation of powers and the requirement for proceedings governed by the rule of law, in that it takes the view that the Commission has the power to impose fines, without the General Court itself having examined the decision of the Commission in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

First, the General Court has infringed the principle of separation of powers and the requirement for proceedings governed by the rule of law, in that it takes the view that the Commission has the power to impose fines, without the General Court itself having examined the decision of the Commission in its entirety.

| — | Second, the General Court has infringed the principle of the direct adduction of evidence, in that it regarded evidence from cooperative witnesses as admissible, in accordance with the practice of the Commission at that time. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, the General Court has infringed the principle of the direct adduction of evidence, in that it regarded evidence from cooperative witnesses as admissible, in accordance with the practice of the Commission at that time.

| — | Third, the General Court has infringed the principle of legality (Article 7(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; ‘the ECHR’), in that it has regarded Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) as being a sufficiently precise legal basis for the imposition of fines. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, the General Court has infringed the principle of legality (Article 7(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; ‘the ECHR’), in that it has regarded Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) as being a sufficiently precise legal basis for the imposition of fines.

| — | Fourth, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the Commission’s 1998 Guidelines for fines are ineffective due to the Commission’s lack of competence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the Commission’s 1998 Guidelines for fines are ineffective due to the Commission’s lack of competence.

| — | Fifth, the General Court has wrongly denied that the Commission’s 1998 Guidelines for fines infringe the principles of non-retroactivity and protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth, the General Court has wrongly denied that the Commission’s 1998 Guidelines for fines infringe the principles of non-retroactivity and protection of legitimate expectations.

| — | Sixth, the General Court has infringed the principle of fault and the presumption of innocence (Article 27(2) of Regulation No 1/2003; Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’); Article 6(2) of the ECHR), in that it has failed to consider that attribution to the undertakings concerned of the infringement through employees was necessary or did not investigate that issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sixth, the General Court has infringed the principle of fault and the presumption of innocence (Article 27(2) of Regulation No 1/2003; Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’); Article 6(2) of the ECHR), in that it has failed to consider that attribution to the undertakings concerned of the infringement through employees was necessary or did not investigate that issue.

| — | Seventh, the General Court has wrongly found that Schindler Holding was jointly liable. In that connection, the principles on joint liability of the parent company that were applied fall within the powers of the Member States. Furthermore, the General Court has also exceeded the limits laid down in case-law of the Court of Justice and infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 48(1) of the Charter and Article 6(2) of the ECHR). |
| --- | --- |

—

Seventh, the General Court has wrongly found that Schindler Holding was jointly liable. In that connection, the principles on joint liability of the parent company that were applied fall within the powers of the Member States. Furthermore, the General Court has also exceeded the limits laid down in case-law of the Court of Justice and infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 48(1) of the Charter and Article 6(2) of the ECHR).

| — | Eighth, the General Court has unlawfully regarded the ceilings in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 as not having been exceeded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Eighth, the General Court has unlawfully regarded the ceilings in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 as not having been exceeded.

| — | Ninth, the right to property of Schindler Holding has been infringed, since the fixing of the fine has the effect of an expropriation (Article 17(1) of the Charter; Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR). |
| --- | --- |

—

Ninth, the right to property of Schindler Holding has been infringed, since the fixing of the fine has the effect of an expropriation (Article 17(1) of the Charter; Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR).

| — | Tenth, the General Court has erred in law by regarding the excessive basic amounts adopted by the Commission as justified. |
| --- | --- |

—

Tenth, the General Court has erred in law by regarding the excessive basic amounts adopted by the Commission as justified.

| — | Eleventh, the General Court has wrongly approved the non-acceptance by the Commission of certain circumstances as mitigating factors. In so doing, the General Court disregarded in particular the voluntary termination of the cartel in Germany and the appellants’ compliance measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

Eleventh, the General Court has wrongly approved the non-acceptance by the Commission of certain circumstances as mitigating factors. In so doing, the General Court disregarded in particular the voluntary termination of the cartel in Germany and the appellants’ compliance measures.

| — | Twelfth, the General Court has regarded the discounts for cooperation, applied at too low a rate or wrongly not included by the Commission, as justified. In so doing, it disregards the contributions of the appellants. It also disregards the fact that the Commission unlawfully allowed reductions for cooperation outside the leniency notice which were too low. |
| --- | --- |

—

Twelfth, the General Court has regarded the discounts for cooperation, applied at too low a rate or wrongly not included by the Commission, as justified. In so doing, it disregards the contributions of the appellants. It also disregards the fact that the Commission unlawfully allowed reductions for cooperation outside the leniency notice which were too low.

| — | Thirteenth, the General Court has infringed the principle of proportionality, in that it has regarded the amount of the fines as acceptable. |
| --- | --- |

—

Thirteenth, the General Court has infringed the principle of proportionality, in that it has regarded the amount of the fines as acceptable.

---

(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).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2011 — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

(Case C-502/11)

2011/C 347/30

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss

Respondent: Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Community law and, in particular, Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) (subsequently, Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC (2)) preclude, in principle, a provision of national law (such as Article 10(1)(a) of Law No 109/1994 (subsequently, Article 34(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), which reserves the right to participate in public tendering procedures to undertakings which are engaged in a commercial activity, thereby excluding certain operators (such as civil-law partnerships) which do not ordinarily and predominantly engage in that type of activity; or is that prohibition reasonable and non-discriminatory in the light of the special rules governing civil-law partnerships and their special asset structure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Community law and, in particular, Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) (subsequently, Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC (2)) preclude, in principle, a provision of national law (such as Article 10(1)(a) of Law No 109/1994 (subsequently, Article 34(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), which reserves the right to participate in public tendering procedures to undertakings which are engaged in a commercial activity, thereby excluding certain operators (such as civil-law partnerships) which do not ordinarily and predominantly engage in that type of activity; or is that prohibition reasonable and non-discriminatory in the light of the special rules governing civil-law partnerships and their special asset structure?

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, the following question is also referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

| 2. | Does Community law and, in particular, Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EEC (subsequently, Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC) and the principle of the freedom of entities admitted to participate in tendering procedures to adopt a particular legal form, allow the national legislature to place limits on the legal capacity of a contractor (or, according to the definition given in Directive 2004/18/EC, an economic operator), in the light of the special features of the rules of national law governing such contractors, prohibiting them from participating in public tendering procedures, or is such a restriction in breach of the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Community law and, in particular, Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EEC (subsequently, Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC) and the principle of the freedom of entities admitted to participate in tendering procedures to adopt a particular legal form, allow the national legislature to place limits on the legal capacity of a contractor (or, according to the definition given in Directive 2004/18/EC, an economic operator), in the light of the special features of the rules of national law governing such contractors, prohibiting them from participating in public tendering procedures, or is such a restriction in breach of the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination?

---

(1)  OJ L 199, p. 54.

(2)  OJ L 134, p. 114.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/21

---

Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

(Case C-503/11 P)

2011/C 347/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzuge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH (represented by: K. Blau-Hansen, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellants;

| — | In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellants in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellants in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

| — | In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in, inter alia, Case T-147/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action of 7 May 2007 against European Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Lifts and escalators) and concerns the appellants.

The appellants allege the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of fundamental rights, in a total of four grounds of appeal:

| | First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties. |
| --- | --- |

First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

| | Second, the appellants allege that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission Decision which held the appellants to be jointly liable on the basis of the group turnover of ThyssenKrupp AG. Thus the judgment infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the rule of law in the form of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, the principle of proportionate penalties, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the fault principle. The judgment is unlawful, in that it rests on the assumption that a subsidiary forms, with its parent company (and other companies in the group), a liability-sharing group in the form of an economic unit. Further and independent thereof, it infringes the principle of fault, since the appellants together with their parent companies were fined as jointly and severally liable participants. In the alternative, the appellants claim that the General Court has confirmed the joint and several liability despite the liability not being allocated within the group. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the appellants allege that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission Decision which held the appellants to be jointly liable on the basis of the group turnover of ThyssenKrupp AG. Thus the judgment infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the rule of law in the form of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, the principle of proportionate penalties, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the fault principle. The judgment is unlawful, in that it rests on the assumption that a subsidiary forms, with its parent company (and other companies in the group), a liability-sharing group in the form of an economic unit. Further and independent thereof, it infringes the principle of fault, since the appellants together with their parent companies were fined as jointly and severally liable participants. In the alternative, the appellants claim that the General Court has confirmed the joint and several liability despite the liability not being allocated within the group.

| | Third, the appellants claim that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier and the Commission’s insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the appellants claim that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier and the Commission’s insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein.

| | Fourth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellants. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellants.

---

(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).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/22

---

Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

(Case C-504/11 P)

2011/C 347/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl (represented by: T. Schaper, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant;

| — | In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

| — | In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in, inter alia, Case T-148/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action of 7 May 2007 against European Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Lifts and escalators) and concerns the appellant.

The appellant alleges the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of fundamental rights, in a total of three grounds of appeal:

| | First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties. |
| --- | --- |

First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

| | Second, the appellants allege that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission Decision which held the appellants to be jointly liable on the basis of the group turnover of ThyssenKrupp AG. Thus the judgment infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the rule of law in the form of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, the principle of proportionate penalties, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the fault principle. The judgment is unlawful, in that it rests on the assumption that a subsidiary forms, with its parent company (and other companies in the group), a liability-sharing group in the form of an economic unit. Further and independent thereof, it infringes the principle of fault, since the appellants together with their parent companies were fined as jointly and severally liable participants. In the alternative, the appellants claim that the General Court has confirmed the joint and several liability despite the liability not being allocated within the group. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the appellants allege that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission Decision which held the appellants to be jointly liable on the basis of the group turnover of ThyssenKrupp AG. Thus the judgment infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the rule of law in the form of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, the principle of proportionate penalties, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the fault principle. The judgment is unlawful, in that it rests on the assumption that a subsidiary forms, with its parent company (and other companies in the group), a liability-sharing group in the form of an economic unit. Further and independent thereof, it infringes the principle of fault, since the appellants together with their parent companies were fined as jointly and severally liable participants. In the alternative, the appellants claim that the General Court has confirmed the joint and several liability despite the liability not being allocated within the group.

| | Third, the appellants claim that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier and the Commission’s insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the appellants claim that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier and the Commission’s insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein.

| | Fourth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellants. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellants.

---

(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).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/23

---

Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

(Case C-505/11 P)

2011/C 347/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG (represented by: T. Klose, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant;

| — | In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

| — | In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant alleges the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of a fundamental right in a total of six grounds of appeal:

| | First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties. |
| --- | --- |

First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

| | Second, the General Court has disregarded the fact that there is infringement of the principle ne bis in idem, since the Commission failed to comply with the amnesty decisions of national cartel authorities in favour of the appellant taken before proceedings were instituted. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the General Court has disregarded the fact that there is infringement of the principle ne bis in idem, since the Commission failed to comply with the amnesty decisions of national cartel authorities in favour of the appellant taken before proceedings were instituted.

| | Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission decision which held the appellant to be jointly liable with its subsidiaries. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not itself participate in the infringements. An attribution of third-party acts on the basis of the incorrect premiss of the liability of the economic unit infringes the principle of personal liability, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission decision which held the appellant to be jointly liable with its subsidiaries. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not itself participate in the infringements. An attribution of third-party acts on the basis of the incorrect premiss of the liability of the economic unit infringes the principle of personal liability, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the right to a fair trial.

| | Fourth, the General Court has erred in law by disregarding the fact that the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liability infringes the principle of personal liability. In the alternative, the appellant alleges that the General Court has unlawfully confirmed the Commission decision as regards the lack of liability allocation within the group and the judgment is thus vitiated by a defect in reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth, the General Court has erred in law by disregarding the fact that the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liability infringes the principle of personal liability. In the alternative, the appellant alleges that the General Court has unlawfully confirmed the Commission decision as regards the lack of liability allocation within the group and the judgment is thus vitiated by a defect in reasoning.

| | Fifth, the appellant claims that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the basic amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier, the repeated imposition of fines for parallel infringements and the insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants by the Commission and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. In any event, the judgment is vitiated by a defect of reasoning, in that it confirms the repeated imposition of fines which departs from the Commission’s decision-making practice. |
| --- | --- |

Fifth, the appellant claims that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the basic amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier, the repeated imposition of fines for parallel infringements and the insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants by the Commission and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. In any event, the judgment is vitiated by a defect of reasoning, in that it confirms the repeated imposition of fines which departs from the Commission’s decision-making practice.

| | Sixth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court has thus applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

Sixth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court has thus applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellant.

---

(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).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/24

---

Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission

(Case C-506/11 P)

2011/C 347/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: ThyssenKrupp AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant;

| — | In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

| — | In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant alleges the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of fundamental rights in a total of seven grounds of appeal:

| | First, the appellant claims that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringement alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties. |
| --- | --- |

First, the appellant claims that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringement alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

| | Second, the General Court has disregarded the fact that there is infringement of the principle ne bis in idem, since the Commission failed to comply with the amnesty decisions of national cartel authorities in favour of the appellant taken before proceedings were instituted. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the General Court has disregarded the fact that there is infringement of the principle ne bis in idem, since the Commission failed to comply with the amnesty decisions of national cartel authorities in favour of the appellant taken before proceedings were instituted.

| | Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission decision which held the appellant to be jointly liable with its subsidiaries. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not itself participate in the infringements. An attribution of third-party acts on the basis of the incorrect premiss of the liability of the economic unit infringes the principle of personal liability, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission decision which held the appellant to be jointly liable with its subsidiaries. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not itself participate in the infringements. An attribution of third-party acts on the basis of the incorrect premiss of the liability of the economic unit infringes the principle of personal liability, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the right to a fair trial.

| | Fourth, the General Court has erred in law by disregarding the fact that the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liability infringes the principle of personal liability. In the alternative, the appellant alleges that the General Court has unlawfully confirmed the Commission decision as regards the lack of liability allocation within the group and the judgment is thus vitiated by a defect in reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth, the General Court has erred in law by disregarding the fact that the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liability infringes the principle of personal liability. In the alternative, the appellant alleges that the General Court has unlawfully confirmed the Commission decision as regards the lack of liability allocation within the group and the judgment is thus vitiated by a defect in reasoning.

| | Fifth, the appellant claims that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier, the repeated imposition of fines for parallel infringements and the insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellant by the Commission and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. In any event, the judgment is vitiated by a defect of reasoning, in that it confirms the repeated imposition of fines which departs from the Commission’s decision-making practice. |
| --- | --- |

Fifth, the appellant claims that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier, the repeated imposition of fines for parallel infringements and the insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellant by the Commission and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. In any event, the judgment is vitiated by a defect of reasoning, in that it confirms the repeated imposition of fines which departs from the Commission’s decision-making practice.

| | Sixth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court has thus applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

Sixth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court has thus applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellant.

| | Seventh, it is alleged that the starting amount of the fines was incorrect also so far as concerns the fine in respect of the Netherlands market, the market volume of which was fully taken into account despite the merely slight involvement in the cartel. |
| --- | --- |

Seventh, it is alleged that the starting amount of the fines was incorrect also so far as concerns the fine in respect of the Netherlands market, the market volume of which was fully taken into account despite the merely slight involvement in the cartel.

---

(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).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

(Case C-512/11)

2011/C 347/35

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry

Defendants: Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

Question referred

Do Directive 2006/54/EC (1) 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 and Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding preclude national provisions of a collective agreement, or the interpretation of those provisions, under which an employee moving from unpaid child-care leave to maternity leave is not paid remuneration during maternity leave in accordance with the collective agreement?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy

(Case C-513/11)

2011/C 347/36

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry

Defendants: Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy

Question referred

Do Directive 2006/54/EC (1) 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 and Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding preclude a national collective agreement from being interpreted as meaning that an employee moving from unpaid child-care leave to maternity leave is not paid remuneration during maternity leave in accordance with the collective agreement?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Agroexpansión v Commission

(Case T-38/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market sharing - Fines - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)

2011/C 347/37

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agroexpansión, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and P. Vidal Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Decision C(2004) 4030 final of the Commission of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) and application for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA under Article 3 of Decision C(2004) 4030 final of the Commission of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 2 430 000. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA under Article 3 of Decision C(2004) 4030 final of the Commission of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 2 430 000.

| 2. | Dismisses the action to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders Agroexpansión to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the European Commission to bear one-tenth of its own costs and to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Agroexpansión to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the European Commission to bear one-tenth of its own costs and to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission

(Case T-41/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Deterrent effect - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 347/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Alliance One International Inc., formerly Dimon Inc. (Danville, Virginia, United States) (represented initially by L. Bergkamp, H. Cogels, J. Dhont, M. Marañon Hermoso and A. Emch, and subsequently by M. Odriozola Alén, J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, M. Barrantes Diaz and A. João Vide, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain), for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. is held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, at EUR 2 187 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain), for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. is held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, at EUR 2 187 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Alliance One International to bear nine tenths of its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of those incurred by Alliance One International. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alliance One International to bear nine tenths of its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of those incurred by Alliance One International.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-139/06) (1)

(Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures - Request for payment - Competence of the Commission - Jurisdiction of the General Court)

2011/C 347/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and S. Gasri and subsequently, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Banks and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, T. Harris and C. Murrell, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 659 Final of 1 March 2006 seeking payment of the periodic penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission

(Case T-312/07) (1)

(Financial contribution granted for an environmental project - LIFE - Decision to recover in part the amount paid out - Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 347/40

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimos Peramatos (Perama, Greece) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis and P. Petropoulos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents, assisted by A. Somou, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment or, in the alternative, amendment of Decision E(2005) 5361 of the Commission of 7 December 2005 relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Dimos Peramatos by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Dimos Peratamos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dimos Peratamos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — SLV Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)

(Case T-449/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LINE - Earlier national word and figurative marks Line - Partial refusal to register - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 347/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SLV Elektronik GmbH (Übach-Palenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Angel Jiménez Muñoz (Gelida, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (case R 759/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Angel Jiménez Muñoz and SLV Elektronik GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 July 2008 (case R 759/2007-4) in so far as concerns the goods ‘mains-operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’ in Class 11; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 July 2008 (case R 759/2007-4) in so far as concerns the goods ‘mains-operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’ in Class 11;

| 2. | orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Gutknecht v Commission

(Case T-561/08) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Biocidal products - Establishment of a list of active substances on the market - Adoption of regulations by the Commission by virtue of Directive 98/8/EC - Causal link)

2011/C 347/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Gutknecht (Kirchheimbolanden, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss suffered following the allegedly unlawful adoption by the Commission of various regulations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) or, in the alternative, following the alleged failure by the Commission to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the right to protection of information supplied under that directive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jürgen Gutknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey)

(Case T-393/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NaViKey - Earlier Community word mark NAVI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Breach of the duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 347/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nokia Corp. (Espoo, Finland) (represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2009 (Case R 1143/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nokia Corp. and NEC Display Solutions Europe GMbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Purvis v Parliament

(Case T-439/09) (1)

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant a voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality)

2011/C 347/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Robert Purvis (Saint Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, H. Krück, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and G. Corstens and subsequently, N. Lorenz, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 7 August 2009, which refused to grant the applicant his voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders John Robert Purvis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders John Robert Purvis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)

(Case T-53/10) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division - Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax - Appeal before the Board of Appeal - Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Period for submission - Admissibility of the appeal - Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Correction of a decision - Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)

2011/C 347/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E.A. Busse, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially by S. Schäffner, and subsequently by R. Manea and G. Schneider, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2009, as corrected by the decision of 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3), and against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Peter Reisenthel and Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Chestnut Medical Technologies v OHIM (PIPELINE)

(Case T-87/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for registration of the Community word mark PIPELINE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 347/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 December 2009 (Case R 968/2009-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PIPELINE as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament

(Case T-213/10) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Dismissal - Breakdown of trust - Statement of reasons - Distortion of the evidence)

2011/C 347/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: P (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: initially S. Seyr and R. Ignătescu, then S. Seyr, agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 in Case F-89/08 P v Parliament, requesting that that judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Ms P to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms P to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Association belge des consommateurs test-achats v Commission

(Case T-224/10) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Belgian energy market - Decision declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market - Commitments given during the initial phase of the investigation - Decision refusing the partial referral of the merger investigation to the national authorities - Action for annulment - Consumer association - Interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to initiate the in-depth review procedure - Procedural rights - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 347/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association belge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Électricité de France (EDF), (Paris, France), (represented initially by C. Lazarus, A. Amsellem and A. Fontanille, and subsequently by C. Lazarus and A. Creus Carreras, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decisions C(2009) 9059 and C(2009) 8954 of 12 November 2009, the former declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market (Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/Segebel) under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), and the latter rejecting a request from the Belgian competition authorities for partial referral of the case in accordance with Article 9 of that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the Association belge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Association belge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (caldea)

(Case T-304/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark caldea - Earlier international word mark BALEA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 347/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and P. Hiller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Semtee (Escaldes Engornay, Andorra) (represented by: É. Guissart, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 899/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in addition to bearing its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in addition to bearing its own costs;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the intervention of Semtee. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the intervention of Semtee.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/31

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS)

(Case T-277/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 347/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Secure Computing Corp. (Roseville, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially E. López Leiva, subsequently J.L. Zurdo Rivas, subsequently J.L. Zurdo Rivas and E. López Camba, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 (Case R 1063/2006-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Secure Computing Corp.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/31

---

Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)

(Case T-341/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Agreement and withdrawal of application - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 347/51

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hess Group AG (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: José Félix Coloma Navarro (Alvarado, Spain) (represented by: A. Fernández Lerroux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1030/2007-1) in invalidity proceedings between José Félix Coloma Navarro and Hess Group AG.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay one half of the defendant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay one half of the defendant’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/31

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — UCAPT v Council

(Case T-96/09) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes for farmers - Production aid for tobacco - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Not of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2011/C 347/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France (UCAPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Peignot and D.F. Garreau, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/32

---

Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 — Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission

(Case T-128/09) (1)

(State aid - Action for annulment - Applicants’ failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 347/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Meridiana SpA (Olbia, Italy) and Meridiana fly SpA, formerly Eurofly SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, lawyers) and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Fiumicino, Italy) (represented by G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 (State Aid No 510/2008 — Italy — Sale of assets of Alitalia)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Meridiana SpA and Meridiana fly SpA shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Meridiana SpA and Meridiana fly SpA shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA.

| 3. | The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/32

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — DBV v Commission

(Case T-297/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China - Rights of defence - Calculation of normal value - Proportionality - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2011/C 347/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Rudolph and A. Günther, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 64).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/32

---

Order of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — GS v Parliament and Council

(Case T-149/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 - Right of the Member States to refuse the reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation - No direct concern - Inadmissible)

2011/C 347/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (Eigeltingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rësslein and A. Neergaard, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and M. Simm, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Complex v OHIM — Kajometal (KX)

(Case T-206/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 347/56

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Complex S.A. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Kajometal s.r.o. (Dolný Kubín, Slovakia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 864/2010-2) in opposition proceedings between Complex S.A. and Kajometal s.r.o.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-346/11 R)

(Interim measures - Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 347/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-347/11 R)

(Interim measures - Rejection of the request for the defence of immunity for a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 347/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 not to defend the applicant’s immunity and privileges.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission

(Case T-379/11 R)

(Interim relief - Environment - Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC - Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision - Application for interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency)

2011/C 347/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisburg, Germany); Rogesa — Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH (Salzgitter, Allemagne); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg); and voestalpine Stahl GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Eurofer v Commission

(Case T-381/11 R)

(Interim relief - Environment - Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC - Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision - Application for interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency)

2011/C 347/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council

(Case T-384/11 R)

(Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 347/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (Isfahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: A. Vitro and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, and subsequently by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures, including suspension of operation of point 19 of Table B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), in so far as the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are frozen includes an entity designated under the name of ‘Safa Nicu’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

(Case T-395/11 R)

(Application for interim measures - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Disregard of the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 347/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

Defendant: Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (represented by: initially N. Bertolini, agent, then J. Stuyck and A. M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro of 21 March 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the public procurement procedure EuropeAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP and containing the information that that contract had been awarded to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/35

---

Order of the judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 3 October 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council

(Case T-421/11 R)

(Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 347/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission

(Case T-422/11 R)

(Interim measures - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable damage - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 347/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and D. Calciu, Agents, and by E. Petritsi, lawyer)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011 which, on the one hand, rejects the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure AO 10340 concerning the supply of computing services for software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications (OJ 2011/S 66-106099) and, on the other, informs the applicant that the relevant framework contract has been awarded to other tenderers.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/35

---

Action brought on 15 September 2011 — Klein v Commission

(Case T-309/10)

2011/C 347/65

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addae-Mensah)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to take a decision in the safeguard clause procedure in progress since 1997 concerning the inhaler Broncho Air® and the effecto® and by not initiating a safeguard procedure pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 93/42/EEC following an order by Germany prohibiting distribution of the effecto®, the European Union, represented by the Commission, has failed to comply with its obligations under Directive 93/42/EEC and under general Community law and has thereby caused the applicant direct damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to take a decision in the safeguard clause procedure in progress since 1997 concerning the inhaler Broncho Air® and the effecto® and by not initiating a safeguard procedure pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 93/42/EEC following an order by Germany prohibiting distribution of the effecto®, the European Union, represented by the Commission, has failed to comply with its obligations under Directive 93/42/EEC and under general Community law and has thereby caused the applicant direct damage;

| — | Order the applicant to pay damages of an amount still to be calculated in respect of the damage caused to it by the European Union, represented by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant to pay damages of an amount still to be calculated in respect of the damage caused to it by the European Union, represented by the Commission;

| — | Order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the applicant’s expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the applicant’s expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims compensation for the damage suffered by him as a result of the alleged failure by the Commission to take action in the safeguard clause procedure pursuant to Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. (1) The applicant developed an inhalation aid for asthma sufferers and persons suffering from COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], which in the view of the German authorities did not fulfil the basic requirements of Directive 93/42/EEC, because the applicant had in particular omitted to provide sufficient clinical data concerning the lack of danger presented by the inhaler. The applicant claims that the safeguard clause procedure opened by the Commission in 1997 pursuant to Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC in order to resolve that issue, following the first banning of the inhaler, was never concluded. Following the second ban in 2005 the Commission did not initiate another safeguard clause procedure, considering that the matter fell under Article 18 of Directive 93/42/EEC.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act insofar as it did not conclude the safeguard clause procedure initiated in 1997 and failed to initiate the stated safeguard clause procedure following the banning of the effecto® in 2005.
  Owing to the lack of clarity of the legal situation in the absence of a decision by the Commission, the applicant and/or atmed AG, of whose board the applicant is the chairman, have been burdened with unnecessary costs in relation to legal proceedings and patents. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act insofar as it did not conclude the safeguard clause procedure initiated in 1997 and failed to initiate the stated safeguard clause procedure following the banning of the effecto® in 2005.

Owing to the lack of clarity of the legal situation in the absence of a decision by the Commission, the applicant and/or atmed AG, of whose board the applicant is the chairman, have been burdened with unnecessary costs in relation to legal proceedings and patents.

| 2. | Second plea in law, complaining that the Commission failed to reach a positive conclusion in the safeguard clause procedure, having decided that the banning orders of the German authorities were unjustified.
  The inhaler Broncho Air® and the effecto® are not dangerous; the burden of proof with regard to the dangerousness of the product rests however with the Member State, given the presumption of conformity of the medical device in question which bears the EC marking. The usefulness of the inhaler Broncho Air® and the effecto® have moreover been clearly established on the basis of the submission of sufficient clinical data. In the absence of a positive decision by the Commission, atmed AG — and therefore the applicant — have suffered substantial loss of revenue, leading to insolvency, and to a lapse of the patents and the exclusive marketing right. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, complaining that the Commission failed to reach a positive conclusion in the safeguard clause procedure, having decided that the banning orders of the German authorities were unjustified.

The inhaler Broncho Air® and the effecto® are not dangerous; the burden of proof with regard to the dangerousness of the product rests however with the Member State, given the presumption of conformity of the medical device in question which bears the EC marking. The usefulness of the inhaler Broncho Air® and the effecto® have moreover been clearly established on the basis of the submission of sufficient clinical data. In the absence of a positive decision by the Commission, atmed AG — and therefore the applicant — have suffered substantial loss of revenue, leading to insolvency, and to a lapse of the patents and the exclusive marketing right.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant lacks sufficient information concerning the required documentation supposed to be forwarded, because the clinical data to be submitted were never clearly described. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant lacks sufficient information concerning the required documentation supposed to be forwarded, because the clinical data to be submitted were never clearly described.

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), in the version as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 (OJ 1993 L 284, p. 1).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/36

---

Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission

(Case T-489/11)

2011/C 347/66

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rousse Industry (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Re

Application for annulment of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as according to that provision what the Commission regards as a failure by the State to take the steps necessary to recover the amounts owed to it is neither new State aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) nor an alteration to existing aid. The applicant also claims that there is no increase in the State’s overall financial burden; and even if that were the case, it would also not be a basis on which to regard the facts at issue as new aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as according to that provision what the Commission regards as a failure by the State to take the steps necessary to recover the amounts owed to it is neither new State aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) nor an alteration to existing aid. The applicant also claims that there is no increase in the State’s overall financial burden; and even if that were the case, it would also not be a basis on which to regard the facts at issue as new aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the third ground referred to in Article 263(2) TFEU, insofar as the Commission, without adducing any proof and without providing reasons, incorrectly assumed that the fact that the State has not reclaimed the amounts owed constitutes an anti-competitive advantage for the company and is therefore incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the third ground referred to in Article 263(2) TFEU, insofar as the Commission, without adducing any proof and without providing reasons, incorrectly assumed that the fact that the State has not reclaimed the amounts owed constitutes an anti-competitive advantage for the company and is therefore incompatible with the internal market.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a procedural error because the Commission’s decision does not contain the reasons which led to the drafting of its conclusions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a procedural error because the Commission’s decision does not contain the reasons which led to the drafting of its conclusions.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, because the contested decision does not indicate either the level of the amount to be reclaimed from the applicant or the corresponding interest at a reasonable rate determined by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, because the contested decision does not indicate either the level of the amount to be reclaimed from the applicant or the corresponding interest at a reasonable rate determined by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/37

---

Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

(Case T-495/11)

2011/C 347/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Michael Streng (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Pappert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulvio Gismondi (Roma, Italy)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2011 in case R 1348/2010-4, and refer the case back to the Fourth Board of Appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2011 in case R 1348/2010-4, and refer the case back to the Fourth Board of Appeal; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PARAMETRICA’, for services in classes 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6048433

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30311096 of the word mark ‘parameta’, for services in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 19(2) and (3) in connection with Rule 98(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the submitted documents containing WIPO INID codes are not in the language of the proceedings and/or taken together with the translation provided in the writ of 3 November 2008, do not constitute ‘translation’ within the meaning of Rule 98(1) CTMIR.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/37

---

Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-498/11)

2011/C 347/68

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the offer submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure-Invitation to specific tender no. 10369 ‘Revamping of the OLAF website’ implementing Competitive Multiple Framework Service Contract no. 10224 lot 1, and related decisions of the Publications Office including the one to award the respective contract to a sucessful tenderer and selected contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the offer submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure-Invitation to specific tender no. 10369 ‘Revamping of the OLAF website’ implementing Competitive Multiple Framework Service Contract no. 10224 lot 1, and related decisions of the Publications Office including the one to award the respective contract to a sucessful tenderer and selected contractor;

| — | Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 31 977 EUR (euros) in damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 31 977 EUR (euros) in damages;

| — | In addition, order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 20 000 EUR (euros) in damages for the loss of opportunity and detriment to its reputation and credibility; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 20 000 EUR (euros) in damages for the loss of opportunity and detriment to its reputation and credibility; and

| — | Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with present application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the tender specifications, using the award criterion contrary to Article 97 of the Financial Regulation and 138 of the Implementing Rules; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the tender specifications, using the award criterion contrary to Article 97 of the Financial Regulation and 138 of the Implementing Rules; and

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, vague and unsubstantiated comments of the Evaluation Committee, modification of the award criteria included in the original call for tenders and not communicating to tenderers criteria introduced a posteriori in due time. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, vague and unsubstantiated comments of the Evaluation Committee, modification of the award criteria included in the original call for tenders and not communicating to tenderers criteria introduced a posteriori in due time.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/38

---

Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Al-Aqsa v Council

(Case T-503/11)

2011/C 347/69

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Heerlen, Netherlands) (represented by: A. van Eik, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation 687/2011 in so far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation 687/2011 in so far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | declare that Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Implementing Regulation 687/2011, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant, is contrary to the sound administration of justice and procedural economy, on account of the appeals still pending before the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 and on account of the decision of 18 April 2011 of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme (Netherlands regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism) 2007-II applies to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Implementing Regulation 687/2011, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant, is contrary to the sound administration of justice and procedural economy, on account of the appeals still pending before the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 and on account of the decision of 18 April 2011 of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme (Netherlands regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism) 2007-II applies to the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fall within the scope of the Common Position. (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fall within the scope of the Common Position. (2)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that no competent authority has taken a decision as referred to in Article 1(4) of the Common Position. Neither the judgment of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003, nor the decision of 18 April 2011, by which the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II is deemed to apply to the applicant, can be regarded as a decision by a competent authority. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that no competent authority has taken a decision as referred to in Article 1(4) of the Common Position. Neither the judgment of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003, nor the decision of 18 April 2011, by which the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II is deemed to apply to the applicant, can be regarded as a decision by a competent authority.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, there is no indication that it had the knowledge required by Article 1(3)(k) of the Common Position. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, there is no indication that it had the knowledge required by Article 1(3)(k) of the Common Position.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant could not be considered to (still) be facilitating the commission of terrorist acts, since that cannot be inferred either from the order of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003 or from the decision of 18 April 2011 by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II applies to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant could not be considered to (still) be facilitating the commission of terrorist acts, since that cannot be inferred either from the order of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003 or from the decision of 18 April 2011 by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II applies to the applicant.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and excessive use of discretion. The Council wrongly failed to carry out a review and failed to discharge the burden of proof on it in respect of a reinstatement decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and excessive use of discretion. The Council wrongly failed to carry out a review and failed to discharge the burden of proof on it in respect of a reinstatement decision.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Implementing Regulation constitutes a disproportionate interference in the right to respect for property. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Implementing Regulation constitutes a disproportionate interference in the right to respect for property.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, based on the right to an effective remedy and the principle of the rights of the defence, since the Council failed to provide specific and concrete information as to why maintenance on the list is necessary. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, based on the right to an effective remedy and the principle of the rights of the defence, since the Council failed to provide specific and concrete information as to why maintenance on the list is necessary.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2).

(2)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/39

---

Action brought on 27 September 2011 — LTTE v Council

(Case T-508/11)

2011/C 347/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: V. Koppe, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (1) insofar as it concerns the LTTE and determine that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) is not applicable to the LTTE; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (1) insofar as it concerns the LTTE and determine that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) is not applicable to the LTTE;

| — | In the alternative, apply a less restrictive measure than continued placement on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, apply a less restrictive measure than continued placement on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies; and

| — | Award costs and interest to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award costs and interest to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE and/or Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2011 is inapplicable due to a failure to take regard of the law of armed conflict; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE and/or Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2011 is inapplicable due to a failure to take regard of the law of armed conflict;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the applicant cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the applicant cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the Council did not conduct any review, as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the Council did not conduct any review, as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP;

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE as the decision does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE as the decision does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity;

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the decision does not comply with the obligation to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFUE; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the decision does not comply with the obligation to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFUE;

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging






  — | that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because it infringes the applicant’s right of defence to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging

—

that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because it infringes the applicant’s right of defence to effective judicial protection.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011; OJ 2001 L 188, p. 2

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism; OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/40

---

Action brought on 24 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-512/11)

2011/C 347/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | To declare, in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the part of the European Commission’s Decision of 13 July 2011 in State aid case SA.29064 (2011/C ex 2011/NN) — Ireland — Air Transport — Exemptions from air passenger tax finding that the exemption of transfer and transit traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax does not constitute State aid, is void; |
| --- | --- |

—

To declare, in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the part of the European Commission’s Decision of 13 July 2011 in State aid case SA.29064 (2011/C ex 2011/NN) — Ireland — Air Transport — Exemptions from air passenger tax finding that the exemption of transfer and transit traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax does not constitute State aid, is void;

| — | To order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

To order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and

| — | To take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

To take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the exemption of transfer and traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the exemption of transfer and traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (1), in so far as it has failed to initiate the procedure provided for in those provisions, in relation to the aid covered by the first part of the contested Decision, despite the existence of, at a minimum, serious doubts as to the compatibility of the exemption of transfer and transit traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax with the common market, and has therefore violated the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (1), in so far as it has failed to initiate the procedure provided for in those provisions, in relation to the aid covered by the first part of the contested Decision, despite the existence of, at a minimum, serious doubts as to the compatibility of the exemption of transfer and transit traffic from the Irish Air Travel Tax with the common market, and has therefore violated the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation No 659/1999.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant is in breach of its obligation to state reasons, as it provided defective statements of reasons marked by contradictions and overgeneralization. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant is in breach of its obligation to state reasons, as it provided defective statements of reasons marked by contradictions and overgeneralization.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/40

---

Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission

(Case T-516/11)

2011/C 347/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington); and MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision dated 12 July 2011 based on the exceptions laid down in Articles 4(2), first indent, and 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision dated 12 July 2011 based on the exceptions laid down in Articles 4(2), first indent, and 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43); and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:






  — | the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:

—

the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;

| — | t he elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

t he elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and

| — | there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020). |
| --- | --- |

—

there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 4(2), first indent, and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:






  — | the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(2), first indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 4(2), first indent, and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:

—

the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(2), first indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;

| — | the elements relied on by the Commission are not credible; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the elements relied on by the Commission are not credible; and

| — | there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the EIM documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the EIM documents.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/41

---

Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission

(Case T-519/11 P)

2011/C 347/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sandro Gozi (Rome, Italy) (represented by G. Passalacqua and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the measure taken by the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security — HR.D.2/MB/db Ares (2010) — Y96 985 of 6 August 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measure taken by the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security — HR.D.2/MB/db Ares (2010) — Y96 985 of 6 August 2010.

| — | Recognise and declare the right of Mr Gozi to reimbursement of legal costs and, consequently, order the payment of the sum of EUR 24 480 plus costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Recognise and declare the right of Mr Gozi to reimbursement of legal costs and, consequently, order the payment of the sum of EUR 24 480 plus costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the decision by which the defendant refused reimbursement of the sum of EUR 24 480 for the legal costs incurred by the appellant in legal proceedings in Italy.

In support of his appeal, Mr Gozi relies on a sole ground of appeal alleging that the judgment under appeal in the present case seems to be wrong in law and marred in several places by reasoning which is clearly contradictory, since that judgment disregards the rationale and wording of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Union, thereby running counter to the case-law referred to in the judgment itself and to the findings of fact in the proceedings before the Commission.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/41

---

Action brought on 3 October 2011 — Igcar Chemicals v ECHA

(Case T-526/11)

2011/C 347/74

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Igcar Chemicals, SL (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: L. Fernández Vaissieres, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare that the action is well-founded and admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the action is well-founded and admissible;

| — | annul in part the contested decision, insofar as it refers to the issuing of an invoice for administrative charges, and annul that invoice; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part the contested decision, insofar as it refers to the issuing of an invoice for administrative charges, and annul that invoice;

| — | order the ECHA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECHA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) number SME (2011) 0572, dated 3 August 2011, and for the related cancellation of the invoice for administrative charges (invoice number 10028302 of 5 August 2011).

It is noted in that respect that the applicant pre-registered various substances that it intended to register. Prior to the latter registration, the applicant was incorrectly recorded as a small enterprise.

In June 2011, on the basis of Article 13(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (the ‘Charges Regulation’), the Agency requested the applicant to show that it had the right to the reduction in registration charges that had been applied. The applicant confirmed that its size corresponded to that of a medium-sized enterprise, a matter which it had voluntarily corrected in the REACH-IT system prior to receiving the abovementioned request from the ECHA.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, concerning the European Commission’s lack of competence to delegate the imposition of an administrative charge to the ECHA and the ECHA’s lack of competence to adopt Decision MB/29/2010 of its Management Board of 12 November 2010 (‘on the classification of services for which charges are levied’).






  — | The applicant alleges in that regard that, by providing in Article 13(4) of the Charges Regulation that the ECHA is to levy an administrative charge distinct from the registration charge, which is the only charge that is permitted by the provisions establishing the ECHA, the Commission goes beyond that which is permitted by those provisions, and in that regard Article 114 TFEU is not a sufficient basis for the competence of the Commission or the ECHA. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, concerning the European Commission’s lack of competence to delegate the imposition of an administrative charge to the ECHA and the ECHA’s lack of competence to adopt Decision MB/29/2010 of its Management Board of 12 November 2010 (‘on the classification of services for which charges are levied’).

—

The applicant alleges in that regard that, by providing in Article 13(4) of the Charges Regulation that the ECHA is to levy an administrative charge distinct from the registration charge, which is the only charge that is permitted by the provisions establishing the ECHA, the Commission goes beyond that which is permitted by those provisions, and in that regard Article 114 TFEU is not a sufficient basis for the competence of the Commission or the ECHA.

| 2. | Second plea in law, concerning the unlawfulness of the delegation of powers contained in Article 13(4) of the Charges Regulation.






  — | The applicant alleges in that regard that the provision referred to leaves it to the discretion of the ECHA to establish an administrative charge without defining its objectives, content, scope or duration, which renders Article 2 of Decision MB/29/2010, and in particular Table 1 in the Annex thereto, unlawful. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, concerning the unlawfulness of the delegation of powers contained in Article 13(4) of the Charges Regulation.

—

The applicant alleges in that regard that the provision referred to leaves it to the discretion of the ECHA to establish an administrative charge without defining its objectives, content, scope or duration, which renders Article 2 of Decision MB/29/2010, and in particular Table 1 in the Annex thereto, unlawful.

| 3. | Third plea in law, concerning the punitive nature of Decision MB/29/2010.






  — | The applicant alleges in that regard that, although pursuant to Article 74(1) of the ECHA basic regulation the Agency is authorised to charge for the services it supplies, in accordance with Article 74(3) of that text the charges are to be fixed in such a way as to ensure that the revenue derived from them, when combined with other sources of the Agency’s revenue, is sufficient to cover the cost of the services delivered. However, an administrative charge for the ECHA’s prior checks in the fixed amount of EUR 14 500 cannot be justified and is disproportionately high in relation to the services delivered. Rather, those administrative charges are in the nature of a penalty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, concerning the punitive nature of Decision MB/29/2010.

—

The applicant alleges in that regard that, although pursuant to Article 74(1) of the ECHA basic regulation the Agency is authorised to charge for the services it supplies, in accordance with Article 74(3) of that text the charges are to be fixed in such a way as to ensure that the revenue derived from them, when combined with other sources of the Agency’s revenue, is sufficient to cover the cost of the services delivered. However, an administrative charge for the ECHA’s prior checks in the fixed amount of EUR 14 500 cannot be justified and is disproportionately high in relation to the services delivered. Rather, those administrative charges are in the nature of a penalty.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of legal certainty.






  — | It is alleged in that respect that the REACH-IT system did not provide sufficient information to enterprises to enable them to know the penalties which may be incurred in respect of the obligation they are under to verify their size. Moreover, the Agency did not take into account either the applicant’s lack of intention or the voluntary correction of the error made. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

—

It is alleged in that respect that the REACH-IT system did not provide sufficient information to enterprises to enable them to know the penalties which may be incurred in respect of the obligation they are under to verify their size. Moreover, the Agency did not take into account either the applicant’s lack of intention or the voluntary correction of the error made.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality in the establishment of the administrative charges concerned. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality in the establishment of the administrative charges concerned.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/42

---

Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-538/11)

2011/C 347/75

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, Agents, and by L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04));

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | The measures implemented by Belgium do not entail a selective advantage for farmers, slaughterhouses and entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

The measures implemented by Belgium do not entail a selective advantage for farmers, slaughterhouses and entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/42

---

Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission

(Case T-540/11)

2011/C 347/76

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk B.V. (Sint Anthonis, Netherlands); Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak (Oosterwolde, Netherlands); Mulders Agro VOF (Heerle, Netherlands); Melkbedrijf Engelen V.O.F. (Grashoek, Netherlands), Melkveebedrijf de Peel B.V. (Asten, Netherlands); and M. Moonen (Nederweert, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Mazel and A. van Beelen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | principally: grant the application for compensation under Article 340 TFEU and declare that the applicants are entitled to financial compensation in the amounts claimed as set out in Annexes 13 to 18, which the Commission is obliged to pay, for the damage suffered by the applicants in consequence of the unlawful adoption and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally: grant the application for compensation under Article 340 TFEU and declare that the applicants are entitled to financial compensation in the amounts claimed as set out in Annexes 13 to 18, which the Commission is obliged to pay, for the damage suffered by the applicants in consequence of the unlawful adoption and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector;

| — | in the alternative: grant the application for compensation under Article 340 TFEU and declare that the applicants are entitled to financial compensation in the amounts claimed as set out in Annexes 13 to 18, which the Commission is obliged to pay, for the damage suffered by the applicants in consequence of the lawful adoption and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: grant the application for compensation under Article 340 TFEU and declare that the applicants are entitled to financial compensation in the amounts claimed as set out in Annexes 13 to 18, which the Commission is obliged to pay, for the damage suffered by the applicants in consequence of the lawful adoption and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from an unlawful act on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of Community law, consisting in a breach of the principle of proportionality. The adjustment by means of Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 (1) of the negative fat correction system in the detailed rules applying Regulation No 1788/2003 was, from the outset, unsuited to ensuring the achievement of the aims of those regulations — to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand on the milk and milk-product market and resulting structural surpluses — and the adjustment at issue imposes a heavy and disproportionate burden on the applicants, which jeopardises the management of their businesses. Accordingly, there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from an unlawful act on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of Community law, consisting in a breach of the principle of proportionality. The adjustment by means of Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 (1) of the negative fat correction system in the detailed rules applying Regulation No 1788/2003 was, from the outset, unsuited to ensuring the achievement of the aims of those regulations — to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand on the milk and milk-product market and resulting structural surpluses — and the adjustment at issue imposes a heavy and disproportionate burden on the applicants, which jeopardises the management of their businesses. Accordingly, there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from an unlawful act on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of Community law, consisting in a breach of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession as referred to in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. In adopting Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006, the Commission mistakenly assumed that that regulation was underpinned by a legitimate objective that was in the public interest and, moreover, its assessment of the various interests involved was incomplete, which must be characterised as unlawful conduct. The resulting damage suffered and still being suffered by the applicants must therefore be made good. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from an unlawful act on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of Community law, consisting in a breach of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession as referred to in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. In adopting Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006, the Commission mistakenly assumed that that regulation was underpinned by a legitimate objective that was in the public interest and, moreover, its assessment of the various interests involved was incomplete, which must be characterised as unlawful conduct. The resulting damage suffered and still being suffered by the applicants must therefore be made good.

| 3. | Third plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from a lawful act on account of the infringement of the principle ‘égalité devant les charges publiques’ (equality in the discharge of public burdens). The damage suffered and still being suffered by the applicants as a result of the negative fat correction adjusted by Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 is real and ongoing, and disproportionately affects the applicants as a special category of undertaking by comparison with other undertakings in the same sector. Furthermore, this damage exceeds the boundaries of commercial risk associated with activities in the sector concerned, and the amending regulation underlying the damage is not justified by a general economic interest. Accordingly, the European Union, or at least the Commission, must make good that damage, or at least provide reasonable compensation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from a lawful act on account of the infringement of the principle ‘égalité devant les charges publiques’ (equality in the discharge of public burdens). The damage suffered and still being suffered by the applicants as a result of the negative fat correction adjusted by Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 is real and ongoing, and disproportionately affects the applicants as a special category of undertaking by comparison with other undertakings in the same sector. Furthermore, this damage exceeds the boundaries of commercial risk associated with activities in the sector concerned, and the amending regulation underlying the damage is not justified by a general economic interest. Accordingly, the European Union, or at least the Commission, must make good that damage, or at least provide reasonable compensation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from a lawful act on account of a breach of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession as referred to in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Owing to the lack of any legitimate public-interest objective for the fat correction adjustment, breach of the requisite ‘fair balance’ in the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 and the Commission’s failure to make provision in that regard for appropriate compensation to prevent or to make good any adverse effect of that regulation on the rights to property of the ‘vetmelkers’ (high-fat milk producers) concerned and damage arising therefrom, the Commission is liable under Article 340 TFEU for the damage actually suffered and still being suffered by the applicants for which compensation is payable. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from a lawful act on account of a breach of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession as referred to in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Owing to the lack of any legitimate public-interest objective for the fat correction adjustment, breach of the requisite ‘fair balance’ in the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 and the Commission’s failure to make provision in that regard for appropriate compensation to prevent or to make good any adverse effect of that regulation on the rights to property of the ‘vetmelkers’ (high-fat milk producers) concerned and damage arising therefrom, the Commission is liable under Article 340 TFEU for the damage actually suffered and still being suffered by the applicants for which compensation is payable.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2006 L 274, p. 6).

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission

(Case T-234/00) (1)

2011/C 347/77

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission

(Case T-235/00) (1)

2011/C 347/78

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Ciga and Others v Commission

(Case T-255/00) (1)

2011/C 347/79

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission

(Case T-266/00) (1)

2011/C 347/80

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)

(Case T-502/09) (1)

2011/C 347/81

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  C 51, 27.2.2010.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)

(Case T-23/11) (1)

2011/C 347/82

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/45

---

Action brought on 13 September 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX

(Case F-87/11)

2011/C 347/83

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 16 December 2010 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 16 December 2010 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX;

| — | order the Agency to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Agency to pay the costs.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/45

---

Action brought on 16 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-88/11)

2011/C 347/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Selection Board's decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO — Administrators-Law (AD 5).

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the re-evaluation decision of the Selection Board of 9 November 2010 upholding its decision of 14 July 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the re-evaluation decision of the Selection Board of 9 November 2010 upholding its decision of 14 July 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO;

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2011 rejecting the applicant's administrative complaint of 7 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2011 rejecting the applicant's administrative complaint of 7 February 2011;

| — | amend the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO — Administrators-Law, so as to include the applicant's name or alternatively order the publication of a new reserve list including the applicant's name; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO — Administrators-Law, so as to include the applicant's name or alternatively order the publication of a new reserve list including the applicant's name;

| — | order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant preliminarily evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 7000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant preliminarily evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 7000;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/45

---

Action brought on 18 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-89/11)

2011/C 347/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s request, under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered in the context of an administrative and disciplinary procedure.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision of the Committee of the Regions No 352/2010 of 12 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted on 14 July 2010 under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage suffered in the context of an administrative and disciplinary procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision of the Committee of the Regions No 352/2010 of 12 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted on 14 July 2010 under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage suffered in the context of an administrative and disciplinary procedure;

| — | so far as is necessary, annul the express decision of the Committee of the Regions of 31 May 2011 rejecting the complaint which the applicant submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 10 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as is necessary, annul the express decision of the Committee of the Regions of 31 May 2011 rejecting the complaint which the applicant submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 10 February 2011;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the excessive length of the administrative and disciplinary procedures concerning the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the excessive length of the administrative and disciplinary procedures concerning the applicant;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of errors and negligence on the part of the Committee of the Regions in conducting various administrative and disciplinary procedures; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of errors and negligence on the part of the Committee of the Regions in conducting various administrative and disciplinary procedures;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 41 888,68 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered as a result of the applicant’s involuntary early retirement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 41 888,68 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered as a result of the applicant’s involuntary early retirement;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay late payment interest on the above amounts at the European Central Bank rates, plus 2 percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay late payment interest on the above amounts at the European Central Bank rates, plus 2 percentage points;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to bear the costs.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/46

---

Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC

(Case F-92/11)

2011/C 347/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the EESC refusing the applicant’s request for acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and for measures to be taken in order to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 14 June 2011 of the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee (Appointing authority/EESC) rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and requesting that measures be taken to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, in particular the applicant’s capacity to run an administrative unit and manage its human and financial resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 14 June 2011 of the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee (Appointing authority/EESC) rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and requesting that measures be taken to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, in particular the applicant’s capacity to run an administrative unit and manage its human and financial resources;

| — | order the EESC to pay a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from a breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC to pay a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from a breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care;

| — | order the EESC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC to pay the costs.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/46

---

Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-93/11)

2011/C 347/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision adopted on 15 June 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries, grade AST 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted on 15 June 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries, grade AST 1;

| — | as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests;

| — | in any event, request EPSO to disclose the information in its possession regarding the results obtained by all the candidates in test (d); |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, request EPSO to disclose the information in its possession regarding the results obtained by all the candidates in test (d);

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, pay the applicant an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, pay the applicant an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;

| — | in any event, pay the applicant, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, pay the applicant, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/46

---

Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-95/11)

2011/C 347/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the implied decision by the EIB to alter the conditions of exercise and the nature of the applicant’s duties, and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the implied decision by the EIB to alter the conditions of exercise and the nature of the applicant’s duties; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implied decision by the EIB to alter the conditions of exercise and the nature of the applicant’s duties;

| — | direct the EIB to reinstate the applicant in a post in accordance with his grade and employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

direct the EIB to reinstate the applicant in a post in accordance with his grade and employment;

| — | declare the existence of administrative errors by the EIB; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the existence of administrative errors by the EIB;

| — | declare the EIB liable to the applicant in respect of the unlawfulness of the decision and the administrative errors; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the EIB liable to the applicant in respect of the unlawfulness of the decision and the administrative errors;

| — | order the EIB to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage arising from the unlawful decision and administrative errors, plus interest for delay;






  — | with regard to the unlawfulness of the decision:






  — | for non-material damage, EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage arising from the unlawful decision and administrative errors, plus interest for delay;

—

with regard to the unlawfulness of the decision:

—

for non-material damage, EUR 20 000;

| — | for material damage by way of loss of remuneration, EUR 113 100; |
| --- | --- |

—

for material damage by way of loss of remuneration, EUR 113 100;

with regard to the administrative errors:

| — | for infringement by the EIB of its duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials and its duty of protection, EUR 119 100; |
| --- | --- |

—

for infringement by the EIB of its duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials and its duty of protection, EUR 119 100;

| — | for infringement of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations, EUR 10 000 |
| --- | --- |

—

for infringement of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations, EUR 10 000

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/47

---

Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-97/11)

2011/C 347/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Parliament as to the date to be regarded as that on which the applicant’s change of marital status took effect for the purposes of withdrawing the household allowance following the civil judgment pronouncing the applicant’s divorce.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 4 July 2011 partially dismissing the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 4 July 2011 partially dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 January 2011, notified by the Streamline administrative management application, to fix the date on which the change in the applicant’s marital status took effect as the date of the judgment pronouncing the divorce; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 January 2011, notified by the Streamline administrative management application, to fix the date on which the change in the applicant’s marital status took effect as the date of the judgment pronouncing the divorce;

| — | indicate to the appointing authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, and, in particular, the date to be taken as that on which the judgment pronouncing the applicant’s divorce from his ex-wife took effect, namely the date of the transcription of the judgment, which took place on 26 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

indicate to the appointing authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, and, in particular, the date to be taken as that on which the judgment pronouncing the applicant’s divorce from his ex-wife took effect, namely the date of the transcription of the judgment, which took place on 26 April 2011;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/47

---

Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v European Commission

(Case F-98/11)

2011/C 347/90

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): ZZ and Others (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission to consider certain financial aid from a Member State to students in higher education to be allowances of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct that financial aid from the education allowance granted to officials who are parents of such students and annulment of the decision to seek repayment of sums unduly paid.

Form of order sought

| — | As regards the first nine applicants, first, annulment of the decisions to deduct from the education allowances paid for their children under the Staff Regulations the amount of the grants for higher education paid to those children by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur du Grand Duché du Luxembourg (Centre for documentation and information on higher education of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ‘CEDIES’), and, second, annulment of the decisions sent to each of those applicants to recover the sums unduly paid corresponding to the allegedly undue amounts of the education allowances previously paid; |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the first nine applicants, first, annulment of the decisions to deduct from the education allowances paid for their children under the Staff Regulations the amount of the grants for higher education paid to those children by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur du Grand Duché du Luxembourg (Centre for documentation and information on higher education of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ‘CEDIES’), and, second, annulment of the decisions sent to each of those applicants to recover the sums unduly paid corresponding to the allegedly undue amounts of the education allowances previously paid;

| — | As regards the last applicant, annulment of the decision asking him to state whether his child had been given a grant by CEDIES and in the meantime suspending the education allowance for that child as of 1 December 2011, only as regards that suspension; |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the last applicant, annulment of the decision asking him to state whether his child had been given a grant by CEDIES and in the meantime suspending the education allowance for that child as of 1 December 2011, only as regards that suspension;

| — | Pay the resulting arrears of remuneration with default interest calculated from the date the arrears fell due at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two points; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pay the resulting arrears of remuneration with default interest calculated from the date the arrears fell due at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two points;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---