title: Case C-400/99: Action brought on 18 October 1999 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/9
— The remaining pleas and main arguments are analogous to               Nor can the scheme and purpose of the provisions relied on
      those put forward in Case C-300/99 p (1).                         be used to deny the plaintiff a claim for damages. If there is no
                                                                        decision, the appellant does not know what action, if any, the
                                                                        decision-making body is taking. The decisive factor is that
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 12.                                      silence on the part of that body should not be interpreted as a
                                                                        refusal. Silence is a legal nullity, of no commercial-law or
                                                                        constitutional-law significance as such. The purpose of the
                                                                        action for failure to act is merely to provide the appellant with
                                                                        an additional remedy should it be appropriate to achieve an
                                                                        immediate resolution of the dispute. However, the injured
                                                                        party cannot thereby lose the possibility of interrupting the
                                                                        limitation period. It is not within his control whether or not
                                                                        the body being challenged acts speedily.
Appeal brought on 15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri
S.p.A against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
European Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli
Murri SpA and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                        (Case C-399/99 P)
                          (2000/C 20/17)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 October 1999 by the Italian
An appeal against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the                Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ties
Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli Murri SpA
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                        (Case C-400/99)
15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri SpA, represented by
Karl-Gustav von Luschka, Chieming, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach                                          (2000/C 20/18)
8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 18 October 1999 by the Commission of the
I.    Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in Case        European Communities, represented by Umberto Leanza,
      T-106/98 (1) of 4 August 1999 and order the respondent            assisted by Piero Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
      to pay the appellant USD 7 923 791 plus 10 % interest as          address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
      from 25 September 1991;                                           Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s letter of 6 August 1999 (1) to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              extent necessary;
Infringement of Community law. The appellant complains that             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the scope of the
second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 232 EC). The period laid down in the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
second paragraph of Article 175 is not eliminatory in regard
to claims for compensation for damage. Article 43 of the EC
Statute of the Court of Justice provides that the period laid           The Italian Republic contests the letter of 6 August 1999 on
down in the second paragraph of Article 175 is to apply only            the following grounds:
‘where appropriate’. The same is true of the wording of the
second paragraph of Article 175 itself, which merely permits,
but does not require, an action for failure to act to be brought        — breach of the principle of legal certainty and the rules on
(‘... the action may be brought ...’). The provision does not                transparency with regard to Regulation No 659/99/EC (2);
establish any connection between non-compliance with the
period for bringing an action for failure to act and loss or            — breach of the right to be heard and rights of the defence and
limitation of the right to bring a claim for damages.                        infringement of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 659/99/EC;
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.1.2000
— misuse of powers inasmuch as the suspension order                         of Directive 96/54/EC expired on 31 March 1998 and the
     was based on grounds other than those laid down in                     Kingdom of Belgium had not adopted the necessary measures
     Article 88(3) EC;                                                      to comply with the amendments to Annexes I and III to
                                                                            Directive 67/548/EEC.
— declaration that the aid existed and was unlawful vitiated
     by uncertainty and lacks investigation and a statement of
     reasons. No reference to facts.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 248 of 30.9.1996, p. 1.
(1) SG(99)D6463 on the opening of the formal inquiry into aid
    granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings belonging to the
    Tirrenia di Navigazione, in so far as it suspends such aid which it
    declares unlawful.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the, Austria, by
                                                                            order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the cases of:
                                                                            1. Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against
                                                                            Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and 2. Michael
                                                                                Stadler against Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                                               (Case C-409/99)
                           (Case C-405/99)                                                            (2000/C 20/20)
                            (2000/C 20/19)                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                            hof (Administrative Court), Austria of 22 September 1999
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                        received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1999, for a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     preliminary ruling in the cases of: 1. Metropol Treuhand
on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European                        WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,                 Steiermark and 2. Michael Stadler against Finanzlandesdirek-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               tion für Vorarlberg on the following question:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            1. Is subparagraph 2 of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Direc-
                                                                                tive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                                to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from
— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                    excluding the right to deduct input tax in respect of certain
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      vehicles after the entry into force of the directive, if before
     Commission Directive 96/54/EC of 30 July 1996 adapting                      its entry into force input tax was deductible in respect of
     to technical progress for the twenty-second time Council                    those vehicles by virtue of the administrative authorities’
     Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,                      actual practice?
     regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-              2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the first sentence of
     stances, (1) in particular Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 2(1)            Article 17(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                    17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     obligations under that directive;                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted
                                                                                as meaning that a Member State may, without prior
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                 consultation under Article 29 of the directive, add to the
                                                                                exclusions from the right to deduct input tax in the manner
                                                                                described in Question 1 in order to consolidate the budget?
Pleas in law and main arguments
It follows from the binding nature of directives, laid down in              (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC, that Member States to which directives are
addressed are obliged to achieve the results provided for within
the periods prescribed. The period prescribed by Article 2(1)


title: Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse against the European Investment Bank (Case T-141/97)

text:
No C 212/30             I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12. 7. 97
the administration. As a result, despite its particularly                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
insecure nature, she was left in ignorance of her situation
for nearly three months . In the applicant's view, such                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
conduct on the part of the Parliament is unacceptable and                 relied on in Case T-140/97.
caused her not only material damage, but also non
material damage .
(') Judgment of 14 May 1996 in Case T-82/95 ( OJ No C 180,
    22 . 6 . 1996 , p. 28 ).
                                                                          Action brought on 7 May 1997 by Natural Van Dam AG
                                                                          and Danser Container Line BV against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-155/97)
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse                                                          ( 97/C 212/60 )
              against the European Investment Bank
                             ( Case T-141/97)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                               ( 97/C 212/59 )
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 May 1997 by
 An action against the European Investment Bank was                       Natural Van Dam AG, a company incorporated under
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               Swiss law, and Danser Container Line BV, represented by
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse, residing                  J. Van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
 at Fauvillers ( Belgium), represented by Pascale Delvaux de              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
 Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar,                34a Rue Philippe II .
 with an address for service at Schouweiler ( Luxembourg )
 at the Chambers of Michel Hautem, 90 Route de Longwy.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          — annul the decision of the European Commission
 — annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the                             of 7 March 1997 ( SG(97) D/1862 ), whereby
      European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                           it was decided not to grant the applicants the
                                                                                exemption applied for under Article 8 ( 3 ) ( c ) of
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89 (*), and,
      in his duties,                                                              notwithstanding that decision, grant the exemption
                                                                                sought,
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 666 466
            — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            course of the proceedings — representing salary
            arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
            compensation for material and non-material                     The applicants operate a container line service on the
            damage,                                                        Rhine . They are contemplating the construction of three
                                                                           specialized vessels intended for the transportation of
      — should his reinstatement prove impossible :                        certain hazardous materials, in respect of which they
                                                                           have sought from the Commission exemption from
            — the sum of Bfrs 1 390 150 by way of ordinary                 the prohibition contained in Article 8 ( 1 ) of the
                compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              aforementioned Regulation .
            — the sum of Bfrs 35 986 625 subject to increase
                or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,            In their view, the rejection of their application is contrary
            — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of                          to the objective of the regulation, which is not aimed at
                compensation for the loss of preferential rates            curbing the influx of new cargo capacity into the inland
                of interest on building loans,                             waterway system. The applicants further complain that
                                                                           the Commission 's assessment of the facts is incorrect and
             — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the                deficient and that its statement of reasons for its decision
                injury to his professional reputation,                      is defective .
  — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the                     ( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on
       applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the                         structural improvements in inland waterway transport ( OJ No
       person and property of his child who is a minor,                           L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989, p. 25 ).
  — order the EIB to bear all costs .


title: Case C-464/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Burgerlijke Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Hasselt, by order of that court of  21 December 2005  in M.C.J.A. Geurts and D.H.M. Vogten v The Belgian State, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Burgerlijke Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Hasselt, by order of that court of 21 December 2005 in M.C.J.A. Geurts and D.H.M. Vogten v The Belgian State, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën
   (Case C-464/05)
   (2006/C 74/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Burgerlijke Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg (Civil Court of First Instance), Hasselt (Belgium) of 21 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between M.C.J.A. Geurts and D.H.M. Vogten and The Belgian State, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën (Federal Finance Authority) on the following question:

               Must Community law, and in particular Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, be interpreted as meaning that a restriction arising from a provision in the legislation of a region of a Member State concerning inheritance, in this case Article 60a of the Belgian Wetboek van Successierechten as applicable to an estate arising in the Flemish Region, which exempts the shares in a family company or the claims of the legal successor of the deceased, his heir, against such a company from inheritance tax if the company has employed at least five workers in the three years prior to the death of the deceased, but restricts that exemption to cases in which at least five workers have been employed in a particular region of that Member State (in casu, the Flemish Region), is incompatible with those articles?


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/52

         Removal from the Register of Case T-253/99 (1)

   (2004/C 118/113)

      Language of the Case: Dutch

   By order of 23 March 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-253/99, Oliehandel Van den Belt B.V. supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Case C-54/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward Industries Inc.

text:
C 150/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
1.    Declares that, by refusing to refund to taxable persons              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
      established in a Member State other than the French Republic,        richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
      who are holders of a main contract for a composite supply of         court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward
      services relating to waste disposal, the value added tax which                                  Industries Inc.
      they have been required to pay to the French State in cases
      where they have subcontracted part of the work covered by such                                  (Case C-54/01)
      a contract to a taxable person established in France, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth
      Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the                                        (2001/C 150/15)
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the       European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      country, in particular Article 2 thereof;                            of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          case of Winward Industries Inc. on the following questions on
                                                                           the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to
                                                                           approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.                                                 marks:
                                                                           1.    In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
                                                                                which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
                                                                                character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
                                                                                above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
                                                                                character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that                    2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
    court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Linde AG                            the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
                                                                                Directive have any significance independently of
                                                                                Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
                           (Case C-53/01)                                        or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
                                                                                the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
                          (2001/C 150/14)                                        available for use, so that registration is, at least in
                                                                                principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                        Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Linde AG on the following questions on the                     (1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:
1.    In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
      which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
      character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
      above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
      character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?            richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
                                                                           court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Rado Uhren
2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict                                             AG
      the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
      Directive have any significance independently of                                                (Case C-55/01)
      Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
      or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
      the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product                                   (2001/C 150/16)
      available for use, so that registration is, at least in
      principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      case of trade marks which meet the requirements of                   European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?                      of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                    case of Rado Uhren AG on the following questions on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
                                                                           Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
                                                                           the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:


title: Case C-514/09 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2009 by Hubert Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v European Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/20

         Appeal brought on 11 December 2009 by Hubert Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v European Commission
   (Case C-514/09 P)
   ()
   2010/C 234/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Hubert Ségaud (represented by: J.-P Ekeu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 21May 2010, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ségaud to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-171/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others
   (Case C-171/13)
   2013/C 178/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

      Respondents: M.S. Demirci, D. Cetin, A.I. Önder, R. Keskin, M. Tüle, A. Taskin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80, (1) having regard to Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, (2) be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision of a Member State, such as Article 4a of the TW, (3) which withdraws the supplementary benefit awarded on the basis of national legislation if the persons in receipt of that benefit no longer live in the territory of that State, even if those persons, while retaining Turkish nationality, have acquired the nationality of the host Member State?

               2.

               If, in answering the first question, the Court of Justice concludes that the persons concerned may rely on Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80, but that such reliance is restricted by the effect of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol: must Article 59 of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as precluding continuation of entitlement to the supplementary benefit for Turkish nationals, such as the persons concerned, as from the point in time at which European Union nationals can no longer claim entitlement to that benefit on the basis of European Union law, even if European Union nationals retained that benefit for a longer period of time on the basis of national law?

      (1)  Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, 25.4.1983, p. 60).

      (2)  Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 18).

      (3)  Toeslagenwet (Netherlands Law on supplementary benefits designed to ensure receipt of the minimum income).


title: Case T-473/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)
   (Case T-473/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON - Earlier Community word mark MENODORON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 184/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Weleda Trademark AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Haring, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2010 (Case R 2345/2010-4), relating to an opposition procedure between Weleda Trademark AG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-77/11: Action brought on 22 February 2011 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/7

         Action brought on 22 February 2011 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament
   (Case C-77/11)
   2011/C 120/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the act of the President of the Parliament of 14 December 2010 declaring the European Union budget for the financial year 2011 definitively adopted, in so far as that measure is combined with the act establishing the budget,

               —

               alternatively, and in so far as it is a separate act from the above, annul the act of the President of the Parliament of that date purporting to adopt the European Union budget for 2011 and give it binding force as against the institutions and the Member States,

               —

               in the alternative, annul the act of the President of the European Parliament declaring the European Union budget for 2011 definitively adopted, in so far as that declaration was made without the 2010 budget procedure (2011 budget) having been completed,

               —

               consider the effects of the 2011 budget as definitive until the budget is established by a legislative act in accordance with the Treaties,

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action the Council submits that, following the introduction of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on 1 December 2009, the annual budget of the European Union and any amending budgets must henceforth be established by a joint legislative act of the two institutions which produce them, namely the European Parliament and the Council. That act must be signed by the presidents of those two institutions in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 297(1) TFEU.
   The Council submits accordingly that the act establishing the 2011 annual budget — whether that act is combined with the declaration of the President of the European Parliament that the 2011 budget is definitively adopted or whether it is regarded as a separate act — is unlawful in so far as it consists in a non-typical and non-legislative act made and signed by the President of the European Parliament alone, in breach of Article 314 TFEU and Articles 288 and 289(2) and the first and third paragraphs of Article 296 of the Treaty and Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union. In the alternative, the Council submits that that act is unlawful on the ground of breach of essential procedural requirements and breach of Article 314(9) TFEU.
   Finally, the Council asks the Court to maintain, if need be, the effects of the budget as published in the Official Journal of the European Union until the date on which that budget is established in accordance with those articles of the Treaty.


title: Case T-475/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Prysmian and Prysmian cavi e sistemi v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/68

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Prysmian and Prysmian cavi e sistemi v Commission
   (Case T-475/14)
   2014/C 315/113
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy); and Prysmian cavi e sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               in the alternative:

                           —

                           annul Article 1(5) of the decision in so far as it found that Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. participated in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement from 18 February 1999 to 27 November 2001;

                           —

                           annul Articles 2(f) and 2(g) of the decision in so far as these set the level of the fines on Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l., Prysmian S.p.a. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. at EUR 3 7 3 03  000; and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.1. and Pirelli & C. S.p.a. at EUR 6 7 3 10  000; and

                           —

                           reduce the fine for the reasons set out in this application;

                           —

                           annul Annex I and II in so far as they refer to Mr F. R.; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully copied and removed forensic images from the hard disks at the applicants’ premises during the inspections. The applicants submit that in so doing the Commission acted beyond its powers as provided for in Article 20(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of reasonable delay for competition proceedings, as these lasted more than 62 months. The applicants contend that the Commission breached Article 6(3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and failed to apply an equitable reduction of the fine in line with the General Court’s case law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of sound administration in as far as it failed to conduct a careful and impartial investigation due to the lack of credibility of the applicants for leniency. The applicants claim that the Commission failed to interpret with caution the reliability of the leniency applicants’ corporate statements and to collect the necessary corroborating evidence.

               4.

               Forth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly attributed liability to Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. for the period before 27 November 2001 and in so doing breached the principles of personal responsibility and of equal treatment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 to the extent that it failed to allocate the responsibility among jointly and severally liable entities.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 101 TFUE in so far as it failed to prove the existence of a single and continuous infringement and misinterpreted the nature and the structure of the relevant markets, whereby it violated the applicants’ right of defence.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to establish to the requisite legal standard the duration of the alleged infringement and, in particular, its starting point.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality as regards the determination of the basic amount of the fine and in particular as regards the gravity of the infringement. The applicants submit that the basic amount of the fine, as well as the entry fee, are disproportionate and should have been adjusted in light of the limited scope of the infringement, the lack of impact on prices, the loosening of the alleged coordination after 2004 and the significant impact of the costs of raw material on the value of sales. The applicants further submit that the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment as it applied different gravity factors and entry fees to addressees in comparable situations.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in listing one specific manager of the applicants in the ‘names and employment record of individuals relevant for this decision’.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2002 in Case T-169/00, Esedra SPRL v Commission of the European Communities (Public contract for the supply of services — Day nursery management services — Principle of non-discrimination — Contract notice — Contract documents — Reasons for decision not to award contract — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 156/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 February 2002
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000 and C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                          in Case T-169/00, Esedra SPRL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Public contract for the supply of services — Day nursery
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              management services — Principle of non-discrimination —
                                                                          Contract notice — Contract documents — Reasons for
                                                                               decision not to award contract — Misuse of powers)
                          of 6 March 2002
in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00, Territorio Histórico                                        (2002/C 156/34)
de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures —
Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or
         scheme of the tax system — Misuse of powers)
                          (2002/C 156/33)
                                                                          In Case T-169/00: Esedra SPRL, established in Brussels
                                                                          (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, E. Gillet and
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          initially by X. Lewis and L. Parpala, and, subsequently, H. van
                                                                          Lier and L. Parpala) — application first, for the suspension of
In Joined Cases T-92/00, Territorio Histórico de Álava —                operation of the Commission’s decision not to award to the
Diputación Foral de Álava, represented by A. Creus Carreras             applicant the public contract relating to invitation to tender
and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, and T-103/00 Ramondı́n                  No 99/52/IX.D.1, notified to the applicant by letter of 31 May
SA, established in Logroño (Spain), Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA,              2000, and the Commission’s decision to award the contract to
established in Laguardia (Spain), represented by J. Lazcano-              a group of Italian companies represented by Centro Studi
Iturburu, lawyer, against Commission of the European Com-                 Antonio Manieri Srl, notified to the applicant by letter of
munities (Agents: F. Santaolalla, G. Rozet and G. Valero                  9 June 2000, and, second, for compensation for the damage
Jordana) — application for the annulment of Commission                    allegedly caused by those decisions — the Court of First
Decision 2000/795/EC of 22 December 1999 on the State aid                 Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President of
implemented by Spain for Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n                       the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
Cápsulas SA (OJ 2000 L 318, p. 36) — the Court of First                  B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                  ment on 26 February 2002, in which it:
of J. Azizi, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili,
R.M. Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March
2002, in which it:                                                        1.    Dismisses the application.
1.     Dismisses the actions.                                             2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
                                                                                Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for
                                                                                interim measures.
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and also those
       incurred by the Commission.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 September 1999 in Case C-391/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln): Frans Gschwind v Finanzamt Aachen-Außenstadt (Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) - Equal treatment - Taxation of non-residents' income - Taxation scale for married couples)

text:
C 352/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             4.12.1999
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 14 September 1999                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-391/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                         of 14 September 1999
the Finanzgericht Köln): Frans Gschwind v Finanzamt
                       Aachen-Außenstadt (1)
                                                                            in Case C-401/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
39 EC) — Equal treatment — Taxation of non-residents’
         income — Taxation scale for married couples)                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC — Non-transposition)
                           (1999/C 352/15)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/16)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-391/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                   In Case C-401/98: Commission of the European Communities
Köln, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
pending before that court between Frans Gschwind and                        Nana Dafniou and Dimitra Tsagkaraki) — application for a
Finanzamt Aachen-Außenstadt — on the interpretation of                      declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                     94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents                26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect
of the Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward,                    of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                       right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ
R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                 1994 L 280, p. 83), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
eral; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                 obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 1999, in                    composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
which it has ruled:                                                         P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and L. Se-
                                                                            vón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 14 September 1999, in which it:
Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2)
EC) is to be interpreted as not precluding the application of a Member
                                                                            1. Declared that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
State’s legislation under which resident married couples are granted             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
favourable tax treatment such as that under the splitting procedure              comply with Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament
whilst the same treatment of non-resident married couples is made                and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
subject to the condition that at least 90 % of their total income must
                                                                                purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
be subject to tax in that Member State or, if that percentage is not
                                                                                purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare
reached, that their income from foreign sources not subject to tax in            basis, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
that State must not be above a certain ceiling, thus maintaining the             under that directive;
possibility for account to be taken of their personal and family
circumstances in the State of residence.
                                                                            2. Ordered the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 397 of 19.12.1998.


title: Removal from the register of T-39/97 R

text:
No C 252/42          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
1996 ('), which held to be unlawful the rejection of the                   Removal from the register of T-17/97 R (')
complaint submitted by him against a decision which,                                          ( 97/C 252/87
although recognizing his entitlement to the allowance for
persons treated as dependent children in respect of the                            (Language of the case: Italian)
first of his two sons, withheld the right to that allowance
for his second son. After that judgment was notified to            By order of 30 June 1997 the President of the Court of
him, the applicant requested the relevant Director-General         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
to extend the effect of that judgment to the years 1993 ,          the removal from the register of Case T-17/97 R:
1994 and 1995 . In its reply of 10 September 1996, the             Viglienzone Adriatica SpA v. Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities .
administrative authority granted that request only for the
period from 1 December 1992 to 30 November 1993 , on
                                                                   (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
the ground that the judgment of 19 June could not be
regarded as implying that a second allowance should be
granted for periods after those covered by the annulled
decision. A subsequent request for review of that decision
was also rejected, by decision of 15 October 1996 .
                                                                           Removal from the register of T-39/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/88 )
Consequently, whilst the applicant seeks, by virtue of the
judgment, a new decision covering all the periods of time                        (Language of the case: German)
for which, in his opinion, he is entitled to an allowance          By order of 13 June 1997 the President of the Court of
for a person treated as a dependent child for both his             First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
sons, the Commission has granted him that right only for           the removal from the register of Case T-39/97 R: T.
the period of time expressly mentioned in the body of the          Port GmbH & Co. v. Commission of the European
annulling judgment. In the applicant's view, the                   Communities .
Commission is exploiting the alleged imprecision of the
judgment as regards the periods following 30 November              (') OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
1993 in order to withhold a right which is lawfully vested
in him. He considers that the administrative authority is
thereby guilty of misuse of powers.
                                                                             Removal from the register of T-71/97 (')
The applicant considers that the judgment of 19 June
1996 is effective ex tunc and that the Commission should                                      ( 97/C 252/89
therefore review the case not only for the period to which                        (Language of the case: English)
the annulled decision relates but also for subsequent
periods .                                                          By order of 2 June 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(') ECR-SC 1996 ] 11-909 .
                                                                   Case T-71/97: Monsanto Europe SA v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
                                                                   H OJ No C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997.


title: Case C-199/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/36

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga
      (Case C-199/16)
      (2016/C 211/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: État belge

         Defendant: Max-Manuel Nianga

         Question referred

      Is Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and having regard to the right to be heard in any proceedings, which forms an integral part of respect for the rights of the defence, a general principle of EU law, as applied in the context of that directive, (1) to be interpreted as requiring national authorities to take account of the best interests of the child, family life and the state of health of the third-country national concerned when issuing a return decision, referred to in Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) of the directive, or a removal decision, as provided for in Article 3(5) and Article 8 of the directive?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 12 June 1996 in Case C-96/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille): URSSAF (Union de Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et d'Allocations Familiales) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique Florens SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lack of jurisdiction of Court of Justice)

text:
23 . 11 . 96        1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/ 13
suffered as a result of his wrongful imprisonment has not yet                           ORDER OF THE COURT
been made good — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                                         ( Fourth Chamber )
of J. -P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida ( Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; A. Pergola ,                                     of 11 July 1996
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-325 /94 P: An Taisce — The National Trust for
12 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF ) v.
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the              (Appeal — Actionable decision — Appeal clearly
question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                                       unfounded)
Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996.                                                ( 96/C 354/25 )
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-325/94 P : An Taisce — The National Trust for
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF )
                        ( Third Chamber )                             (represented by George Berrisch ) — appeal against the
                         of 12 June 1996                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 23 September 1994 in
in Case C-96/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Case T-461 /93 between An Taisce and WWF UK and the
Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de                Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-733 , seeking to have that
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique           the Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                           Florens SA (M                              Carmel O'Reilly and Marc van der Woude ) — the Court
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of          ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President
                         Court ofJustice)                             of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                           ( 96/C 354/24 )                             ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General ; R.
                                                                      Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 July 1996 in
                                                                      which it :
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs .
In Case C - 95/96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [Commercial Court],
Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
d' Allocations Familiales )       des Bouches-du-Rhone and
Clinique Florens SA on the question whether it is possible to
request the opening of proceedings for redressement                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
judiciaire ( judicial settlement) involving a person who has
                                                                                (First Chamber )
been charged with and acquitted of a criminal offence,
where the damage suffered as a result of his wrongful                                      of 17 September 1996
 imprisonment has not yet been made good — the Court                   in Case C-19/95 P: San Marco Impex Italiana Sri v.
 ( Third Chamber), composed ofJ. -P. Puissochet, President of                 Commission of the European Communities ( J )
 Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C.
 Gulmann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.                  (Appeal — Public work contract — Article 178 and the
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 June 1996 , the                        second paragraph of Article 215 of the Teaty)
 operative part of which is as follows :                                                          ( 96/C 354/26 )
 The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the                             (Language of the case: English)
 question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
 Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996 .                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                        In Case C-19/95 : San Marco Impex Italiana Sri ( represented
                                                                        by Lucette Defalque ) — appeal for the annulment of the


title: Case T-132/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Epcos v OHIM — Epco Sistemas (EPCOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark EPCOS — Earlier national figurative mark epco SISTEMAS — Relative ground 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) — Genuine use of earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Epcos v OHIM — Epco Sistemas (EPCOS)
   (Case T-132/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark EPCOS - Earlier national figurative mark epco SISTEMAS - Relative ground 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) - Genuine use of earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 38/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Epcos AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. von Zumbusch and S. Schweyer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Epco Sistemas SL (Constanti, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2009 (Case R 1088/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Epco Sistemas SL and Epcos AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Epcos AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-228/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Hotel Gabrielli srl, formerly Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/14

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Hotel Gabrielli srl, formerly Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-228/13 P)
   2013/C 207/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Hotel Gabrielli srl, formerly Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 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;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

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

      Grounds in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (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).


title: Case C-111/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden)) — SCT Industri AB i likvidation v Alpenblume AB (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments — Scope — Insolvency)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden)) — SCT Industri AB i likvidation v Alpenblume AB
   (Case C-111/08) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Scope - Insolvency)
   2009/C 205/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SCT Industri AB i likvidation

      Defendant: Alpenblume AB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Judgment of a court in Member State A ruling that the liquidator in insolvency proceedings in Member State B does not have power to transfer the assets of the company in liquidation located in Member State A — Action for recovery of property brought by the transferee company to recover the shares in a company which it had acquired in the insolvency proceedings but which were taken back by the transferring company pursuant to the judgment annulling the transfer

      Operative part of the judgment

   The exception provided for in Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 44/2001 (EC) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying to a judgment of a court of Member State A regarding registration of ownership of shares in a company having its registered office in Member State A, according to which the transfer of those shares was to be regarded as invalid on the ground that the court of Member State A did not recognise the powers of a liquidator from a Member State B in the context of insolvency proceedings conducted and closed in Member State B.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 09.05.2008.


title: Case C-199/16: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga
   (Case C-199/16) (1)

   (2017/C 283/40)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-686/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2013 — X AB v Skatteverket

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2013 — X AB v Skatteverket
      (Case C-686/13)
      (2014/C 71/19)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: X AB

         Defendant: Skatteverket

         Question referred

      Do Article 49 TFEU and Article 63 TFEU preclude national legislation according to which the Member State of domicile does not grant a deduction for a currency loss which is an integral part of a capital gain or capital loss on holdings for business purposes in a company which is domiciled in another Member State, where the Member State of domicile applies a system under which capital gains and capital losses on such assets are wholly exempt from taxation?


title: Case C-491/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 November 2014  — Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L. v U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 November 2014 — Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L. v U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.
   (Case C-491/14)
   (2015/C 026/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L.

      Defendant: U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.

      Question referred

   Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Case T-503/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2006 — Pessoa e Costa v Commission (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Interinstitutional transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) — Refusal — Effect on disciplinary proceedings)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2006 — Pessoa e Costa v Commission
   (Case T-503/04) (1)

   (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Interinstitutional transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) - Refusal - Effect on disciplinary proceedings)
   (2006/C 310/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of 9 October 2003 by which the Director General of the Commission 'Personnel and administration' Directorate General refused to transfer the applicant to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case C-82/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon (Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 — Monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the European Union — Definitions — Terms ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ — Field of application)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/11

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon
      (Case C-82/09) (1)

      (Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 - Monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the European Union - Definitions - Terms ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ - Field of application)
      (2010/C 161/15)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Simvoulio tis Epikratias

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis

         Defendant: Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (OJ 2003 L 324, p. 1) — Definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ — Divergent definitions

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus), which define, for the purposes of that regulation, the terms ‘forest’ and ‘wooded land’, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which contain different definitions of those terms as regards actions which are not governed by the regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-478/11: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — France v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by a national inter-professional pig and pork producers council — Financing by voluntary contributions made mandatory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/27

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — France v Commission
   (Case T-478/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures taken by a national inter-professional pig and pork producers council - Financing by voluntary contributions made mandatory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 184/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, then E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and S. Thomas, then B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN 10/2010 — France — Tax to finance a national inter-professional pig and pork producers council

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-128/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others
   (Case C-128/13)
   2013/C 171/21
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

      Defendants: IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

      Questions referred

   The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to give a preliminary ruling, in the light of the arguments of the parties, on the interpretation to be given to Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) and Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985, (2) in relation to the ‘release’ of the security provided in the context of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87.

      (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).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5).


title: Case C-245/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — EMAG Handel Eder OHG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (Preliminary references — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 8(1)(a) and (b), the first subparagraph of Article 28a(1)(a), Article 28b(A)(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) — Intra-Community dispatch or transport of goods — Supplies — Intra-Community acquisition of goods — Chain transactions — Place of transaction)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — EMAG Handel Eder OHG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten
   (Case C-245/04) (1)

   (Preliminary references - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 8(1)(a) and (b), the first subparagraph of Article 28a(1)(a), Article 28b(A)(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) - Intra-Community dispatch or transport of goods - Supplies - Intra-Community acquisition of goods - Chain transactions - Place of transaction)
   (2006/C 143/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EMAG Handel Eder OHG

      Defendant: Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 8(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Place of supply in triangular operations or chain transactions — Purchase of goods by an undertaking established in a Member State from another undertaking established in the same Member State which is supplied by undertakings established in other Member States, where the goods are dispatched by the suppliers directly to the purchasing undertaking acquiring the goods
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where two successive supplies of the same goods, effected for consideration between taxable persons acting as such, gives rise to a single intra-Community dispatch or a single intra-Community transport of those goods, that dispatch or transport can be ascribed to only one of the two supplies, which alone will be exempted from tax under the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of the 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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.
               That interpretation holds good regardless of which taxable person — the first vendor, the intermediary acquiring the goods or the second person acquiring the goods — has the right to dispose of the goods during that dispatch or transport.

               2.

               Only the place of the supply which gives rise to dispatch or intra-Community transport of goods is determined in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/7; that place is deemed to be in the Member State of the departure of that dispatch or transport. The place of the other supply is determined in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of that directive; that place is deemed to be either in the Member State of departure or in the Member State of arrival of that dispatch or transport, according to whether that supply is the first or the second of the two successive supplies.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.1.2004.


title: Case C-313/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-313/04)
   (2004/C 239/05)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main of 24 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung on the following question:

               1.

               Is Article 35(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 contrary to higher-ranking Community law (1), in particular the prohibition in Article 28 EC of quantitative restrictions on imports and of measures having equivalent effect, the prohibition of discrimination in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC and Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 (2), and is it therefore invalid?

               2.

               Is Article 25(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 contrary to higher-ranking Community law, in particular the prohibition of discrimination in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, the prohibition of discrimination in the second subparagraph of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, Article 28 EC and the first paragraph of Article 82 EC, and is it therefore invalid?

               3.

               Are Articles 25(1) and 35(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 contrary to Article XVII: 1(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and Article 1(3) of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (3), and are they therefore invalid?

      (1)  OJ L 341, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ L 160, p. 48.

      (3)  OJ L 336, de 23.12.1994, p. 151.


title: Case T-493/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 October 2009 — Sun World International v OHIM — Kölla Hamburg (SUPERIOR SEEDLESS) (Community trade mark — Partial surrender of registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 October 2009 — Sun World International v OHIM — Kölla Hamburg (SUPERIOR SEEDLESS)
   (Case T-493/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial surrender of registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 312/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun World International LLC (Bakersfield, California, United States) (represented by: M. Holah, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Lemke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2008 (Case R 1378/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import GmbH & Co. KG and Sun World International LLC.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Sun World International LLC shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import GmbH & Co. KG.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.