ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/6

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Enviro Tech Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-118/12 P)

2012/C 227/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Enviro Tech International, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 as regards the Appellant's claim for damages; and

— declare the Respondent liable for damages suffered by the Appellant; or

— alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's claim for damages; and

— order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for damages on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to establish the existence of unlawful action on the part of the Commission, the General Court breached European Union law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed an error in its interpretation of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-425/08 and, as a consequence, it made an error in law in failing to assess the third part of the Appellant's first plea of illegality in relation to ‘normal handling or use’ and concluding that the application for damages should be dismissed.

For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 should be set aside as regards the Appellant's claim for damages and the Respondent should be declared liable for damages suffered by the Appellant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/18

Action brought on 2 February 2012 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-55/12)

2012/C 89/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by granting excise duty relief for the fuel used by disabled people for motor vehicles without respecting the minimum levels of taxation prescribed by Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by maintaining the exemption from excise duty of motor fuels used by disabled people, Ireland is in breach of its obligations under the directive.

(1) Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity

OJ L 283, p. 51
1.

Main ground of appeal , alleging an error of law and infringement of the rights of the defence in the analysis of whether liability for the infringement could be attributed to the appellant. The General Court attributed liability for the infringement to Armando Álvarez as a direct participant in the cartel, thereby upholding not only fresh pleas in law, but also grounds for attributing liability to Armando Álvarez different from the ground established in the contested decision. In addition, the General Court rejected the arguments in the application, holding that they were insufficient to rebut the presumption that Armando Álvarez exercised actual control over its subsidiary. However, since there was no presumption, in the Commission’s decision, to the effect that the appellant exercised actual control over the subsidiary, it was not for the appellant to rebut such a presumption, but rather the burden of proof rested entirely upon the Commission. In so doing, the General Court misapplied the concepts of participation in an infringement and the attribution of such participation, and infringed the appellant’s rights of defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2012 — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA

(Case C-157/12)

2012/C 184/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

Questions referred

Does Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) also cover cases of irreconcilable judgments given in the same Member State (State of origin)?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
1.

How must the concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’ in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation No 723/2004 (the ‘Staff Regulations’), (1) be understood? Does that concept include the level of pension rights determined both in the form of the actuarial equivalent and in the form of the flat-rate redemption value as defined in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as laid down prior to the entry into effect of Regulation No 723/2004, or must it be identified with only one of those concepts, and if not, how does it differ from those concepts?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/18

Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-43/12)

2012/C 98/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn and R. Troosters, Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences; (1)

— declare that the effects of Directive 2011/82/EU are to be regarded as definitive;

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks to bring an action for annulment against Directive 2011/82/EU. The Commission disputes the legal basis chosen. It claims that Article 87(2) TFEU is not the appropriate legal basis, as the directive seeks to introduce a mechanism for the exchange of information between Member States that covers road traffic offences, regardless of their administrative or criminal nature. Article 87 refers only to police cooperation between the competent authorities in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences. In the opinion of the Commission, the proper legal basis is Article 91(1) TFEU. The purpose of the directive is to improve road safety, which is one of the common transport policy areas expressly provided for in Article 91(1)(c).

(1) OJ 2011 L 288, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/12

Appeal brought on 18 April 2012 by Chafiq Ayadi against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09: Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission

(Case C-183/12 P)

2012/C 194/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The Appellant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:

— the order of the General Court dated 31 January 2012 is quashed

— it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose

— the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application

— The Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs of defending the Commission's application to find the annulment action devoid of purpose before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant raises the following two pleas in law:

A. The General Court erred when it failed to: (a) hear from the Advocate-General and/or (b) invite representations from the Appellant as to whether the oral procedure ought to be opened and/or (c) open the oral procedure on the question as to whether the application to annul was devoid of purpose.
1.

in circumstances where a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State (in this case, Belgium), in order to join, not in the context of a marriage or registered partnership, a citizen of another Member State (in this case, a person of French nationality), by whom she has a child (of French nationality), is that national one of the persons covered by Regulation No 1408/71 (1) as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant, as awardee, of guaranteed family benefits for another child who is a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) even though her cohabitation with the father of the child of French nationality has in the meantime come to an end?
2.

In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses?
2.

Under Article 4(3) of Framework Directive 2007/46/EC, the competent institutions of a Member State must register a new passenger car if it satisfies the technical requirements laid down in that directive and the separate directives. Directive 2007/46/EC does not provide for the possibility to refuse to register a new passenger car by having regard to the side on which the steering equipment is mounted. This conclusion is also confirmed by the provisions of the separate Directive 70/311/EEC which are specified in Annex IV to the Framework Directive. Article 2a of Directive 70/311/EEC prohibits a Member State from refusing registration of a passenger car on grounds relating to its steering equipment if this equipment satisfies the requirements set out in that directive. It is not specified in the annexes to Directive 70/311/EEC on what side the steering equipment, including the steering wheel, has to be mounted, nor, all the more, is it specified that the side of the road on which the car is to be driven determines the side of the steering equipment in the car.
—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 36 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/6

Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-196/12)

2012/C 184/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s Proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant submits that the Council has departed from the Commission’s Proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials under Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, despite the fact that it is apparent from the mandatory terms of that article that the method for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council no discretion. The abovementioned article obliges the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal before 31 December of the current year. In the submission of the applicant, the Council is not empowered to depart from that obligation on the ground that it is of the view that the Commission ought to have submitted to it a proposal under Article 10 of Annex XI. In any event, the fundamental conditions for Article 10 to apply were not met in 2011 as is, moreover, apparent from two economic reports submitted by the Commission to the Council at the request of the Council. By adopting Decision 2011/866/EU (1) itself under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, the Council thus infringed the required institutional conditions.

The Commission also complains that the Council has refused to adjust the correction coefficients which must be applied to the remuneration and pensions according to the different places of work or residence of the persons concerned. In the view of the applicant, it cannot be disputed that the ‘decision’ of the Council is entirely silent on that point, the reasoning underlying it referring exclusively to the ‘exception clause’ of Article 10 of Annex XI. The Council’s attitude must therefore be regarded as an unlawful refusal to act.

(1) Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2011 L 341, p. 54).
2.

Must Article 35(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, in so far as it lays down the time-limits and procedure for the release of the security lodged at the time when an import licence is issued, be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a failure to comply with a secondary obligation — consisting, in particular, in the late production of proof that the product has been correctly imported (and, consequently, the late submission of the related application for release of the security lodged) — the amount of the penalty to be imposed must be determined independently of the amount of the specific security the forfeiture of which must be ordered for non-compliance with a primary obligation in relation to those same imports, and must the amount of the penalty be determined, in particular, by reference to the normal amount of security applicable to most imports of products of the same type carried out during the reference period?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-99/12)

2012/C 138/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurofit SA

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Question referred

Is there a case of force majeure within the meaning of Regulation No 3665/87, laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, (1) where the competent authorities fail to provide requested information, or deliberately communicate erroneous information to an economic operator, thereby distorting its assessment of the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud?

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

(Case C-89/12)

2012/C 133/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Rose Marie Bark

Respondent in cassation: Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

Question referred

Should Article 11(2) of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, annexed to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 (1) of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking, in conjunction with Article 2 of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union, and more specifically the pay conditions of those conditions of employment, are applicable to staff of the Galileo Joint Undertaking who are employed on fixed-term contracts?

(1) OJ 2002 L 138, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-228/12)

2012/C 217/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
4.

If it is held that Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 can be applied to a case such as that described in Question 2, even when the objective circumstances and subjective factor of Question 3 coincide, what is considered to be the value of the component (in the present case sugar) which was incorporated into the imported goods and supplied at no cost to the importer, where the component in question, which could not be subject to a customs procedure of outward processing in accordance with Article 146(1) of the said Regulation, was not produced by him, but was acquired by him at the export price (which was lower than the price that applied on the internal market, since the product is subject to the refund system)?
Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) preclude a national rule by which it is established that an environmental impact assessment for infrastructure works (not concerning the runway) at an airport, that is the construction of a terminal and the extension of the airport site to construct further facilities (in particular hangars, equipment buildings and parking areas), shall only be carried out if the annual number of aircraft movements is anticipated to increase by no less than 20 000?

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
—

declare that, by not guaranteeing correct and full implementation of all requirements laid down in Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of, and Annexes II (A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5) and III (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2) to, that directive;
2.

Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that the provision covers the action of a creditor against a director of a company if the action seeks to hold the director liable for the company’s debts where the director has failed to make formal arrangements to monitor the company’s financial situation and instead has continued to operate the company and has burdened it with further debts?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

(Case C-257/12)

2012/C 217/28

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20 EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included?

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/10

Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Jarosław Majtczak against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Case T-227/09: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-266/12 P)

2012/C 258/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Jarosław Majtczak (represented by: J. Radłowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd

Form of order sought

By the present appeal the appellant asks the Court of Justice to:

— annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and dismiss the applicant's suit or in the alternative;

— annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and refer the case back to the General Court;

— adjudicate the costs in favour of the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment infringes article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark, as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) (on the Community trade mark), particularly with regard to the General Court's interpretation of the concept of ‘acting in bad faith’.

The appellant also submits that the General Court has breached procedure by making erroneous findings of fact and by being selective in its assessment of the evidence produced.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 11, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version)

OJ L 78, p. 1