title: Case C-46/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 28 January 2010 — Viking Gas A/S v BP Gas A/S

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 28 January 2010 — Viking Gas A/S v BP Gas A/S
   (Case C-46/10)
   2010/C 80/35
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Viking Gas A/S

      Respondent: BP Gas A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5, in conjunction with Article 7, of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted in such a way that company B is guilty of an infringement of a trade mark if it fills gas bottles which originate from company A with gas which it then sells, where the following circumstances apply:

                           1.

                           A sells gas in so-called composite bottles with a special shape, which is registered as such, that is to say, as a shape trade mark, under a Danish trade mark and an EC trade mark. A is not the proprietor of those shape trade marks but has an exclusive licence to use them in Denmark and has the right to take legal proceedings in respect of infringements in Denmark.

                           2.

                           On first purchase of a composite bottle filled with gas from one of A’s dealers the consumer also pays for the bottle, which thus becomes the consumer’s property.

                           3.

                           A refills the composite bottles by a procedure under which the consumer goes to one of A’s dealers and, on payment for the gas, has an empty composite bottle exchanged for a similar one filled by A.

                           4.

                           B’s business consists in filling gas into bottles, including composite bottles covered by the shape trade mark referred to in 1., by a procedure under which consumers go to a dealer associated with B and, on payment for the gas, can have an empty composite bottle exchanged for a similar one filled by B.

                           5.

                           When the composite bottles in question are filled with gas by B, adhesive labels are attached to the bottles indicating that the filling was undertaken by B?

               2.

               If it may be assumed that consumers will generally receive the impression that there is an association between B and A, is this to be regarded as significant for the purpose of answering Question 1?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, may the outcome be different if the composite bottles — apart from being covered by the shape trade mark referred to — also feature (are imprinted with) the registered figurative and/or word mark of A, which is still visible irrespective of any adhesive labels affixed by B?

               4.

               If either Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, may the outcome be different if it is assumed that, with regard to other types of bottle which are not covered by the shape trade mark referred to but which feature A’s word and/or figurative mark, A has for many years accepted, and continues to accept, the refilling of the bottles by other companies?

               5.

               If either Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, may the outcome be different if the consumer himself goes to B directly and there:

                           (a)

                           on payment for the gas, obtains, in exchange for an empty composite bottle, a similar one filled by B, or

                           (b)

                           on payment, has a composite bottle which he has brought filled with gas?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case F-36/08: Action brought on 21 March 2008 — Schell v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/40

         Action brought on 21 March 2008 — Schell v Commission
   (Case F-36/08)
   (2008/C 142/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 and annulment of his 2007 promotion report.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 and annul his 2007 promotion report;

               —

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


title: Case C-217/14: Order of the President of the Court of 14 April 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervenors: Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 April 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervenors: Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-217/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/36)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-100/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Transfer of mines at a price below real market value — Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction — Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission
   (Case C-100/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Transfer of mines at a price below real market value - Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction - Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted))
   (2017/C 144/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos and I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (T-233/11 and T-262/11, EU:T:2015:948) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to respond to Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s argument based on the purpose for which the expert report on the appraisal of the mines in Cassandra (Greece) had been drawn up during 2004;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismissess Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos AE;

               4.

               Orders Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case F-126/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary sanction — Reprimand — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
   (Case F-126/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary sanction - Reprimand - Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations)
   2013/C 352/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José Antonio de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Boury, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the Appointing Authority in so far as it issues a disciplinary sanction in the form of a written reprimand to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.12, p. 31.


title: Case C-68/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Charge owing for C Sugar disposed of on the internal market — Application for remission — Equity clause laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Import or export duties — Principles of equality and legal certainty — Equity)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-68/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 - Charge owing for C Sugar disposed of on the internal market - Application for remission - Equity clause laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - ‘Import or export duties’ - Principles of equality and legal certainty - Equity)
   (2006/C 326/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA (represented by: M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, F. Tuytschaever, advocaat)
   Re
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2004 in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision REM/19/10 of 2 May 2002 declaring inadmissible the request for remission of import duties lodged by the Netherlands in favour of the applicant
   Operative part of the Judgment

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 26 January 1995 in the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 (Case C-28/95)

text:
No C 74/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
the future reutilization of such ground residue has not been                     permanently in a single unit from a financial and
established.                                                                     economic point of view ?
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                                  2.5 . Is an exchange of shares which is carried out in
(2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                                      order to bring about a horizontal setting-off of tax
(3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                          losses between the participant undertakings
                                                                                within a fiscal unit as referred to in Article 15 of
                                                                                the Wet op de Vennootschapsbelasting ( Law on
                                                                                CorporationTax) 1969 a valid commercial reason
                                                                                for the exchange for the purposes of Article 1 1 of
                                                                                the Directive ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 26 January 1995
in the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der
        Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2
                          ( Case C-28/95 )                             Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Société Commerciale
                             95/C 74/12 )                              des Potasses et de l'Azote and by Enterprise Minière et
                                                                       Chimique against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-30/95 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 26 January                                             95/C 74/13 )
1995, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                      An action originally brought before the Court of First
the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der                           Instance by Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote
Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 on the                       and by Enterprise Miniere et Chimique was referred to the
following questions:                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       8 February 1995 . The Cour^of First Instance made an order
1 . May questions be referred to the Court of Justice                 declining jurisdiction and transferred the action, originally
     concerning the interpretation of the provisions and              registered as Case T-88/94, to the Court of Justice for a
     scope of a directive of the Council of the European              ruling on the application for annulment.
     Communities even where the directive is not directly
     applicable to the specific circumstances of the case but it      The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a
     is the national legislature's intention that those               notice in Official Journal No C 103 of 11 April 1994,
     circumstances are to be treated in the same manner as a          p. 13 .
     situation to which the directive does apply?
2. If Question 1 above is answered in the affirmative:
     2.1 . Can there Be an exchange of shares within the
           meaning of Article 2 (d ) of Council Directive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
           90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 if the acquiring                Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court
           company within the meaning of Article 2 (h) does           of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sari Polypieces v.
           not itself carry on a business ?                                Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique
                                                                                (Case C-33/95 )
     2.2 . Is an exchange of shares within the meaning of
           Article 2 (d) precluded by the fact that the same                                    ( 95/C 74/14 )
           natural person who was the sole shareholder in,
           and director of, the acquired company before the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           exchange is the director of, and sole shareholder          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
           in, the acquiring company after the exchange ?             Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Saint Nazaire, of
                                                                      19 December 1994, which was received at the Court
     2.3 . Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning          Registry on 13 February 1995 .
           of Article 2 ( d ) only if its effect is to merge the
           business of the acquiring company and that of
           another permanently in a single unit from a                The Regional Court asks the Court ofJustice to give a ruling
           financial and economic point of view?                      on the following question:
     2.4. Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning           is the present system for taxing motor vehicles under Article
           of Article 2 (d ) only if its effect is to merge the       1599 G of the French General Tax Code compatible with
           businesses of two or more acquired companies               Article 95 of the EEC Treaty, in that it provides for the


title: Case T-86/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2013 by Diana Grazyte against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Case F-76/11 Grazyte v Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/30

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2013 by Diana Grazyte against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Case F-76/11 Grazyte v Commission
   (Case T-86/13 P)
   2013/C 101/59
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Diana Grazyte (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by R. Guarino, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Case F-76/11 Grazyte v Commission;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of DG HR D, acting as the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment, of 29 April 2011 and, as a consequence, declare that the appellant is entitled to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging breach and/or misinterpretation of Community law with regard to the rules on the interpretation of law and the rationale of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and failure to state reasons.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that both the wording of the provision in question (which refers to ‘reasons other than the performance of duties in the service of a State or of an international organisation’) and the rationale of that provision have the effect of excluding from the allowance any person who has left his country of origin without establishing a lasting tie with the country to which he has moved precisely because he was employed by an international organisation. It is not possible, on the basis of the wording, the logic or indeed the rationale of that provision, to arrive at the conclusion, as did the Tribunal in the judgment under appeal, that periods following employment in the service of an international organisation are to be disregarded when the move occurred, as in the present case, for personal reasons.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging breach and/or misinterpretation of Community law with regard to the classification of Agencies as international organisations for the purpose of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Rules.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that an ‘international organisation’ for the purpose of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations has been defined with great precision by the case-law. Thus, in its judgment of 30 November 2006 in J v Commission (in particular paragraphs 42-43), the General Court of the European Union considered that, in order for an organisation to be classified as international for the purpose of the application of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary for it to be formally identified and recognised as such by the other States or by other international organisations created by the States. In any event, for the purpose of determining whether an organisation is an international organisation, regard must be had only to its own composition, not whether it is a member of organisations with an international composition. In the light of those strict criteria, neither the EFSA nor the ETF may be regarded as international organisations within the meaning of Article 4.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           It is submitted that the interpretation given to the provision in question by the court at first instance is illogical and has the effect of giving rise to discrimination between two categories of officials, for which this is no objective basis, by treating the position of a person who has been outside his country of origin simply because he was performing duties in the service of a State or an international organisation (thus not severing contact with his home country) in the same way as that of a person who has left his country of origin for personal reasons, leading to a severing of links with that country, and only subsequently worked for a State or an international organisation. Moreover, according to the judgment under appeal, the situation of two officials who left their respective countries of origin more than ten years ago to raise a new family abroad are to be treated differently simply because one of those individuals, after living in the new country for many years, was employed by an international organisation.


title: Case T-359/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (4) order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                               ings.
The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of
17 August 2000 to stop paying the household allowance and
to deduct from the applicant’s monthly pension for the period            Pleas in law and main arguments
from April 2000 to January 2001 the household allowance
alleged by the Commission to have been unduly paid since                 Free Trade Foods NV (‘FTF’) owns a sugar factory on Curaçao.
24 September 1998, the date of the death of the applicant’s              In 2000 it intended to process approximately 50 000 tonnes.
spouse.
                                                                         FTF is entirely dependent on the processing of C-sugar
The applicant claims that, since the death of his wife, he has           originating in the Community, which, as a result of EC/OCT
been in a situation of the type referred to in Article 1(c) of           cumulation, obtains an OCT origin and can thus be imported
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and that he therefore                into the Community free from duty.
continues to be entitled to receive the household allowance.
                                                                         As a result of the third safeguard measure a very limited quota
                                                                         of 4 848 tonnes now applies.
                                                                         FTF sets out the following four pleas in law in support of
                                                                         annulment of the third safeguard measure and payment of
Action brought on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade                         compensation:
Foods NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   1.    Infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;
                         (Case T-350/00)                                 2.    Infringement of the order of priority established in the
                                                                               EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods;
                          (2001/C 45/45)
                                                                         3.    Infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                               guard Measures (concluded within the framework of the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              WTO), together with infringement of Article 300(7) EC;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                4.    Illegality of Regulation No 2553/97.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade
Foods NV, having its registered office in Curaçao (Netherlands           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
                                                                             2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
Antilles), represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, of the
                                                                             measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
Trenité Van Doorne Chambers, Rotterdam and Brussels, with                    of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of De                   2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64).
Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods to be
      admissible;
(2) annul Regulation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000                   Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización
      introducing safeguard measures for imports from the                de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congela-
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products        dores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (hereinafter ‘the third                                      Communities
      safeguard measure’) (1);
                                                                                (Case T-359/00)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage incurred
      by Free Trade Foods as a result of the third safeguard
      measure, that the parties reach agreement on the extent                                      (2001/C 45/46)
      of the damage incurred by Free Trade Foods, and, in the
      absence of agreement on that matter, that the procedure
      be continued, within a period to be set by the Court, to                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
      determine the extent of that damage, and order the
      Community to pay compensation for the damage as                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      provisionally estimated and still to be estimated; in the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      alternative, it should order the Community to pay such             European Communities on 24 November 2000 by the Orga-
      compensation as the Court may reasonably determine,                nización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
      plus applicable interest from the date of the document             Congeladores (OPAGAC), whose registered office is at Madrid,
      instituting these proceedings until the date of full pay-          represented by Jesús Casas Robla and Vanessa Arrastia de la
      ment;                                                              Sierra.
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              provides compensation which offsets and stabilises the income
                                                                         of fishery producers can only mean that, whenever a producer
                                                                         switches from one producers’ organisation to another, the
—     annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Article 2(2) of, and            bases for calculation laid down in Article 18(4) of the basic
      the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/2000               regulation must be amended to the same extent.
      of 11 September 2000 and Article 2(2) of, and the annex
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1103/2000 of 25 May
      2000 providing for the granting of compensation to
      producers’ organisations in respect of tuna delivered to           The applicant further alleges misuse of powers by the Com-
      the processing industry from 1 October to 31 December              mission.
      1999 (OJ 2000 L 125, p. 18 and OJ 2000 L 230, p. 10);
—     in the alternative, annul such articles and annexes on the         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994
      ground that the Commission misused its powers when                     amending Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organ-
      interpreting Article 18 of the basic regulation;                       ization of the market in fishery products and aquaculture (OJ
                                                                             1994 L 350, p. 15).
—     order the Commission to provide for a new regulation
      correcting the tonnage distributed between OPAGAC and
      OPTUC in view of changes in their respective tonnage;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries
The applicant organisation explains, first and foremost, that            Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
its composition changed on 1 July 1998 when it was joined                                             Market
by two undertakings which had previously been part of
APTUC, another tuna producers’ organisation. Since then, the
registered tonnage and catches of the applicant organisation                                     (Case T-360/00)
has increased, thus changing the basis for calculating the
compensation laid down in the basic regulation (1).
                                                                                (2001/C 45/47)
Following publication of Regulation No 1103/2000, cited
above, the applicant became aware of the fact that compen-
sation had been distributed among producers’ organisations                                  (Language of the case: English)
without account being taken of changes to tonnages by
associations, so it then made the appropriate approaches to
the Spanish and Union authorities.
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 November 2000 by Dart
Without resolving the matter of allocations for the third                Industries Inc., represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas of Oppenhoff &
quarter of 1999, the Commission adopted Regulation                       Rädler (Cologne) Germany.
No 1926/2000, cited above, in which the allocations are, in
the view of the applicant, also erroneous.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
To date, the Commission has still not replied to the request of
the Secretarı́a General de Pesca Marı́tima for the correct               —     annul the defendant’s decision R 278/2000-1 of 22 Sep-
interpretation of the applicable legislation, so that the applicant            tember 2000;
is obliged to seek the interpretation of the basic regulations
implied in the articles of and annexes to the regulations
providing for compensation in respect of the period running              —     order that the Application No. 716597 ‘UltraPlus’ be
from 1 October to 31 December 1999.                                            referred back to OHIM to be published in accordance
                                                                               with CTMR Article 40 in respect of all the goods claimed
                                                                               therein;
In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
by the contested provisions of Article 18(4) of Regulation
No 3579/92, cited above. In its view, the fact that the measure          —     order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case F-151/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2014  — Ohrgaard v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Residence condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Performance of duties in an international organisation — Concept — Work experience period of five months at the Commission — Exclusion)

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/67

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Ohrgaard v Commission
   (Case F-151/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Residence condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Performance of duties in an international organisation - Concept - Work experience period of five months at the Commission - Exclusion))
   2014/C 223/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jakob Ohrgaard (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 6 March 2012 refusing Mr Ohrgaard the benefit of the expatriation allowance, as amended by the decision of 31 August 2012 rejecting the claim;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Ohrgaard.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013, p. 26.


title: Appeal brought on 29 January 1999 by N against the order made on 30 November 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-21/99 P)

text:
13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/23
         considered that an undertaking in difficulties, the         Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
         position of which in terms of pricing covers the                European Communities of 30 November 1998 in Case
         middle to the top of the range, must of necessity               T-97/94;
         abandon its strategy and adopt instead a strategy
         of price dumping Ð which does not seem to                   Ð declare the action brought by the applicant on 9 March
         accord with the spirit of the guidelines.                       1994 admissible and well founded;
     Ð The Commission's finding concerning a lack of                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
         proportion between State funds and the
         contribution made by the buyer does not in any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         way take into account the special situation of such
         buyers as the managers of the undertaking, who              Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
         contribute sums corresponding to their personal                 on Human Rights, discrimination, breach of the
         finances and thereby show their commitment to                   principle that no person should be allowed to derive
         the restructuring plan. In addition, the                        an advantage from his own illegal acts: whilst the
         Commission has failed to take into account the                  appellant may no longer have been in the service of
         fact that the recipient undertaking constitutes a               the Commission at the time when he brought his
         small to medium-sized undertaking and the fact                  action, he was in its service at the time when he made
         that it is in an objective 2' zone, despite the fact           his complaint giving rise to the subsequent
         that provision is made for this in the guidelines.              proceedings. By failing to notify its decision rejecting
         The Commission wrongly estimates the buyer's                    his complaint until after the expiry of the period of
         contribution to amount to 12 % of the State funds               four months provided for by the Staff Regulations of
         applied; in terms of the subsidy' equivalent, the              Officials, the Commission itself created the
         proportion in question amounts to 22 %. Lastly,                 circumstances which enabled it to plead the absence of
         the restructuring measures taken (involving the                 a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
         closing down of approximately 60 % of
         production capacity, laying off of employees, etc.)         Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of, and
         clearly show that the undertaking has participated              respect for, personal rights: the Court of First Instance
         in the efforts made.                                            failed to take into account the fact that positive staff
                                                                         reports may still permit an official, even after his
     Ð As regards the criterion of preventing distortions
                                                                         service has terminated, to prove his scientific and
         of competition, the French Government considers
                                                                         professional abilities in the event of his continuing to
         that the Commission's assessment fails to take into
                                                                         pursue his professional activities, even outside the
         account the information provided by it, and that
                                                                         Community sphere.
         the decision is not sufficiently specific and
         detailed.
(1) Competition law in the European Communities', Vol. II B,
    p. 38.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-204/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/41)
                                                                     By order of 10 December 1998 the President of the Court
Appeal brought on 29 January 1999 by N against the                   of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
order made on 30 November 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                  removal from the register of Case C-204/98: Commission
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                        (Case C-21/99 P)
                         (1999/C 71/40)
An appeal against the order made on 30 November 1998
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Removal from the register of Case C-308/98 (1)
European Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and                                           (1999/C 71/42)
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
Communities on 29 January 1999 by N, represented by
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Georges Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar.
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-308/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v Ireland.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
Ð declare the present appeal admissible and well
     founded;


title: Case T-76/04: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bactria v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/48

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bactria v Commission
   (Case T-76/04) (1)

   2010/C 37/70

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 July 1998 in Joined Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92): Eugénio Branco Lda v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 299/35
represented by Annetje-Theckla Ottow, of the Amsterdam                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                        of 8 July 1998
Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias
Hardt, against the Commission of the European                        in Joined Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92):
Communities (Agents: Hendrik Van Lier, Marc van der                  EugeÂnio Branco Lda v. Commission of the European
Woude and Rita Wezembeek-Geuke) Ð application for                                           Communities (1)
annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and
concerning an application for repayment of import duties                                     (98/C 299/62)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt, and A. Potocki, Judges;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 July 1998 in which it:
                                                                     In Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) EugeÂnio
1. annuls the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997                  Branco Lda, established in Lisbon, represented by Bolota
    addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and                  Belchior of the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for
    concerning an application for repayment of import                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
    duties;                                                          Schroeder, 6, rue Heine, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa
                                                                     Fialho and Knut Simonsson) Ð application for costs to be
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           taxed following the Court's judgments in Branco v.
                                                                     Commission (T-85/94 [1995] ECR II-45) and Commission
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             v. Branco (T-85/94 (122) [1995] ECR II-2993) Ð the
                                                                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V.
                                                                     Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 July 1998 in
                                                                     which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            1. joins Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) for
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                    the purpose of this order;
                        of 14 July 1998
     in Case T-219/97: Anita Brems v. Council of the                 2. fixes at PTE 3 500 000, plus VAT if appropriate, the
                      European Union (1)                                  total amount of costs recoverable in Cases T-85/94
                                                                          and T-85/94 (122).
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Thermal cure Ð
Article 59 of the Staff Regulations Ð Sick leave Ð Special
                                                                     (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
                             leave)
                         (98/C 299/61)
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-219/97: Anita Brems, an official of the Council                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the European Union, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,                                     of 15 July 1998
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire              in Case T-155/95: LPN and GEOTA v. Commission of the
Myson SA  Á RL, 30, rue de Cessange, against the Council of                            European Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Martin                                   (Inadmissibility)
Bauer) Ð application for the annulment of decisions of
the Council refusing to grant to the applicant all her sick                                  (98/C 299/63)
leave from 24 May to 8 June 1996 Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:                               In Case T-155/95, LPN, Liga para ProteccËaÄo da Natureza
                                                                     and GEOTA, Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Ter-
1. dismisses the application;                                        ritório e do Ambiente, both established in Lisbon,
                                                                     represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui Amen-
                                                                     doeira, JoseÂ Cunhal Sendim and Paula Gomes Freire, of
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       the Lisbon Bar, with chambers at Avenida António
                                                                     Augusto Aguiar, 27, 2.o, Dt.o, Lisbon, against the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     António Caeiro and Günter Wilms), supported by the
                                                                     Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Angelo


title: Case T-566/10: Action brought on 15 December 2010 — Ertmer v OHIM — Caterpillar (erkat)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/27

         Action brought on 15 December 2010 — Ertmer v OHIM — Caterpillar (erkat)
   (Case T-566/10)
   2011/C 55/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Jutta Ertmer (Tatsungen, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and C. Eckhartt)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Caterpilla, Inc. (Illinois, USA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 September 2010 in Case R 270/2010-1;

               —

               dismiss the appeal lodged by Caterpillar Inc. on 17 February 2010 against the decision of the cancellation Division of OHIM of 8 January 2010 in Cancellation proceedings No 2504 C;

               —

               order the defendant and Caterpillar Inc., if it decides to participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘erkat’ for goods in Classes 7 and 42.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Caterpillar Inc.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) the application was based on the national and Community word mark ‘CAT’, the national figurative marks and the Community figurative mark containing the word ‘CAT’, for goods and services in Classes 7 and 42.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the registered mark was declared invalid.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the contested decision does not show on which earlier mark or marks the Board of Appeal based its decision to grant the application of the other party and a key part of the grounds was copied from another decision; infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since there was no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks; and infringement of Article 8(5) in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the earlier figurative marks do not have a reputation and there would be no detriment to, or unfair advantage taken of, the distinctive character or repute of those marks.

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


title: Case T-172/00: Action brought on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pierard against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pierard
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendants jointly and severally to pay compen-
      sation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result
      of the phasing out of the tax-free regime pursuant to                                       (Case T-172/00)
      Article 28 of Directive 92/12/EEC on 30 June 1999, on
      the basis that the applicant quantifies and limits the
                                                                                (2000/C 259/51)
      amount of the damages claimed to DM 1 000 000 plus
      annual interest at the rate of 8 % from the date of
      judgment;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendants to pay to the applicant, pursuant to
      Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      First Instance, the costs necessarily incurred in the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      proceedings.                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pie-
                                                                         rard, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Lombart and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
By the present action, the applicant is claiming, on the basis of
an assigned right, compensation for the damage suffered by               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the undertaking Nordisk Faergefart A/S as a result of the fact
that, by adopting Directive 92/12/EEC (1), the Council brought           —     annul the decision of the appointing authority not to
to an end the tax-free sale of goods in intra-Community travel.                reinstate the applicant in his original service on 13 Octob-
Nordisk Faergefart operated ferry services between Denmark                     er 1999, despite his having officially requested this in a
and Germany until 30 June 1999. According to the applicant,                    note dated 26 April 1999;
it was compelled to discontinue those ferry services on 1 July
1999, since it was no longer possible, without tax-free sales            —     annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
on board its vessels, to make a profit. The applicant now
claims compensation for the loss of profit suffered by Nordisk           —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
Faergefart as a result of the cessation of its business.                       compensation for non-material damage, the sum of
                                                                               6 200 euro together with statutory interest until payment
In support of its claim, the applicant maintains in particular                 in full;
that the directive infringes higher-ranking law, namely:
—     the Community principle of the rule of law, in that it             —     order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.
      contains contradictory and unclear rules;
—     the Treaty objective of the creation of an internal market,        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in accordance with Article 14 (ex Article 7a) EC;
—     the prohibition of customs duties or charges having                The applicant, who had been assigned to Directorate-General
      equivalent effect, in accordance with Article 25 (ex               IX — Personnel and Administration for the duration of the
      Article 12) EC;                                                    performance of his duties as representative of staff working
                                                                         outside the Community on the Central Staff Committee,
—     the prohibitions laid down in Article 28 (ex Article 30)           complains of the fact that he was not immediately re-assigned
      and Article 29 (ex Article 34) EC;                                 to his original post on the expiration of his term of office on
                                                                         18 May 1999.
—     Article 93 (ex Article 99) EC, permitting the harmonis-
      ation of indirect taxes;
                                                                         He maintains that the defendant failed to take that decision
—     the principle of proportionality, on account of the lack of        within a reasonable time, and that it:
      appropriateness to the internal market;
—     the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;        —     has disregarded Articles 1a, 36, 38(g) and 45 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations of officials and the final paragraph of
—     a series of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the                 Article 1 of Annex II to those Regulations, as well as the
      freedom to exercise a trade or profession, the right to                  principle of equal treatment, the duty to have regard for
      property and free trade.                                                 the welfare and interests of officials and the principle of
                                                                               the protection of legitimate expectations; and
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the          —     has prejudiced his career and caused him non-material
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992                 damage.
    L 76, p. 1).


title: Case T-260/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/16

         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-260/12)
   2012/C 250/30
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Samoni and N. Dafniou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               grant the application for annulment;

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               join, on account of identity of the factual and legal grounds, the present action for annulment with the similar action brought by the Hellenic Republic against the European Commission in Case T-105/12.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment (under Article 263 TFEU) of Commission Decision 416117 of 11 April 2012‘relating to continued payment by the Hellenic Republic of the daily penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-65/05’, in so far as making of the penalty payment is sought from 22 August 2011 onwards. Under the aforementioned contested decision, given that, according to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic appears not to have undertaken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05 and subsequently its second judgment in Case C-109/08, the Hellenic Republic is called upon to pay the sum of EUR 3 847 392 as a penalty payment for the period from 1 December 2011 until 31 March 2012.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

               1.

               First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
               The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05.

               2.

               Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power
               The Commission exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments.

               3.

               Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission
               In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 31 March 2012.
               The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated.

               4.

               Fourth, incorrect use of legal basis
               The Hellenic Republic submits that, if the Commission considered that Law 4002/2001 was not being applied correctly by the Hellenic Republic, it had to use Article 258 TFEU and initiate a fresh infringement procedure, and not require continued making of the penalty payment.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 April 1995 in Case T-435/93: Association of Sorbitol Producers within the EC (Aspec) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (State aids - Admissibility - Non-existence - Habilitation - Prior decision authorizing a general scheme of aid)

text:
No C 159/22          TEN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 27 April 1995                                                        of 27 April 1995
in Case T-435/93 : Association of Sorbitol Producers within               in Case T-442/93 : Association des Amidonneries de
the EC (Aspec) and Others v. Commission of the European                   Céréales de la CEE (AAC ) and Others v. Commission of the
                          Communities ( ] )                                                 European Communities (*)
(State aids — Admissibility — Non-existence —                             (State aids — Admissibility — Non-existence — Prior
Habilitation — Prior decision authorizing a general scheme                       decision authorizing a general scheme of aid)
                                  of aid)                                                          ( 95/C 159/47)
                             ( 95/C 159/46 )
                (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-435/95 : Association of Sorbitol Producers within
                                                                          In Case T-442/93 : Association des Amidonneries de
the EC ( Aspec ), established in Brussels, Cerestar Holding               Céréales de la CEE (AAC ), established in Brussels ,
BV, established at Sas van Gent, Netherlands, Roquette                    Levantina Agricola Industrial SA ( Laisa ), established in
Frères SA, established in Lestrem, France, Merck oHG,
                                                                          Barcelona, Spain, Società Piemontese Amidi e Derivati SpA
established in Darmstadt, Germany, represented by Nicole                  ( SPAD ), established in Lestrem, France, Pfeiffer & Langen ,
Coutrelis , of the Paris Bar, and by John A. Johnson, of the              established in Cologne, Germany, Ogilvie Aquitaine SA,
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in                  established in Bordeaux, France, Cargill BV, established in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter,                   Amsterdam, Latenstein Zetmeel BV, established in
11 Rue Goethe, supported by the French Republic (Agent:                   Nijmegen, Netherlands, all represented by Michel
Catherine de Salins ), with an address for service in                     Waelbroeck and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar ,
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard du Prince                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Henri, and Casillo Grani snc, established in San Giuseppe                 of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by
Vesuviano, Italy, represented by Mario Siragusa, Maurizio                 the French Republic (Agent: Catherine de Salins ), with an
D'Albora and Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini , respectively               address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9
of the Rome, Naples and Bologna Bars, with an address for                 Boulevard du Prince Henri, and Casillo Grani Snc,
service at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue
                                                                          established in San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy, represented by
Mathias Hardt v . Commission of the European                              Mario Siragusa, Maurizio D'Albora and Giuseppe
Communities ( Agents : D. Calleja y Crespo, M. Nolin and R.               Scassellati-Sforzolini, respectively of the Rome , Naples and
Lyal ), supported by Italgrani SpA, established in Naples,                Bologna Bars, with an address for service at the Chambers of
Italy, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo of the Trapani Bar,              E. Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the
Luigi Sico and Felice Casucci, of the Naples Bar, and                     European Communities (Agents : M. Nolin, D. Calleja y
Massimo Annesi and Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar,
                                                                          Crespo and R. Lyal ), supported by Italgrani SpA,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                 established in Naples , Italy, represented by Aurelio
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I er — application for the                 Pappalardo of the Trapani Bar, Luigi Sico and Felice
annulment      of   Commission          Decision   91 /474/EEC   of
                                                                          Casucci , of the Naples Bar, and Massimo Annesi and
16 August 1991 concerning aids granted by the Italian                     Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with an address for
Government to Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 5 1
agri-foodstuffs complex in the Mezzogiorno ( 2 ) — the                    Rue Albert I er — application for the annulment of
Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended                        Commission Decision 91/474/EEC of 16 August 1991
composition ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P.               concerning aids granted by the Italian Government to
M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.                             Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an agri-foodstuffs
Kalogeropoulos,          Judges,         J.   Palacio     Gonzalez,       complex in the Mezzogiorno (2 ) — the Court of First
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition),
27 April 1995 , in which it:
                                                                          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
                                                                          A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges, J.
1 , annulled Commission Decision 91 /474/EEC of                           Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      16 August 1991 concerning aids granted by the Italian               given a judgment on 27 April 1995 , in which it:
      Government to Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an
      agri-foodstuffs complex in the Mezzogiorno;
                                                                          1 , annulled Commission Decision 91 /474/EEC of
2 , ordered the Commission to bear its own costs together                     16 August 1991 concerning aids granted by the Italian
      with the costs incurred by the applicants;                              Government to Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an
                                                                              agri-foodstuffs complex in the Mezzogiorno;
3 , ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                          2 , dismissed the remainder of the application;
(') OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 254 , 11 . 9 . 1991 , p . 14 .
                                                                          3 , ordered the Commission to bear its own costs together
                                                                              with the costs incurred by the applicants;


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-252/97 P: N v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Disciplinary measures - Removal from post)

text:
10.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/3
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  French law, established in Paris, represented by Jacques
                       (Third Chamber)                               Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
                        of 16 July 1998                              Rue Mathias Hardt, Ð appeal against the order of the
in Case C-252/97 P: N v. Commission of the European                  Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 September
                        Communities (1)                              1997 in Case T-83/97 Sateba v. Commission [1997] ECR
                                                                     II-1523, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
 (Appeal Ð Disciplinary measures Ð Removal from post)                party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
                         (98/C 312/05)                               European Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
               (Language of the case: French)                        President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and K. M.
                                                                     Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                     Registrar, has made an order on 17 July 1998, the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       operative part of which is as follows:
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-252/97 P: N, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Xavier MagneÂe, of the Brussels Bar, with an address              2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the present
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis                       proceedings.
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 1997 in Case
T-273/94 N v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-289, seeking
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
proceedings being the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by the European
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J. C.                 Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 May
Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.              1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made              of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
an order on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament
as follows:                                                                                (Case C-284/98 P)
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                  (98/C 312/07)
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
                                                                     1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.                                             of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
                                                                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 24 July 1998 by the European Parliament, represented
                                                                     by JoseÂ-Luis Rufas Quintana and Evelyn Waldherr, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  the Registry of the General Secretariat of the European
                                                                     Parliament, Tower Building.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                        of 17 July 1998                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
in Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba) v. Commission of the European                  Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
                        Communities (1)                                  Instance of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96 Bieber v.
                                                                         Parliament (1),
(Appeal Ð Public supply contracts Ð Closure of the file
concerning a complaint regarding the conduct of the
                    contracting authority)                           Ð alternatively, annul points 2, 3 and 6 of the operative
                                                                         part of that judgment so as to reduce the period in
                         (98/C 312/06)                                   respect of which the European Parliament is ordered
                                                                         to compensate the respondent to the period from
               (Language of the case: French)                            15 June 1995 to 13 December 1995,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð grand the form of order sought by the European
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Parliament in the proceedings at first instance, and
In Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en                Ð make a ruling as to costs in accordance with the
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba), a company incorporated under                      applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-232/96: French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1992 and 1993 - Beef and veal - Cereals)

text:
C 358/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
Commission Decision 93/659/EC of 25 November 1993                  1. Dismisses the application;
on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
States in respect of the expenditure for 1990 of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                   2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ L 301, 8.12.1993, p. 13)
                                                                        Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
Mancini (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,              (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                                       (Fifth Chamber)
    costs.                                                                               of 1 October 1998
                                                                   in Case C-232/96: French Republic v. Commission of the
(1) OJ C 76, 12.3.1994.                                                              European Communities (1)
                                                                   (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð
                                                                                Beef and veal Ð Cereals)
                                                                                (98/C 358/04)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               (Language of the case: French)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 1 October 1998
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-209/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       published in the European Court Reports)
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                   In Case 232/96: French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins and
                         Beef and veal)                            F. Pascal) v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agent: X. Lewis) Ð application for the annulment in part
                         (98/C 358/03)                             of Commission Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                   the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                   States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the
                                                                   Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
               (Language of the case: English)                     and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in respect of certain
                                                                   expenditure for 1993 (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the
                                                                   Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                   President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
In Case C-209/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón,
Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by G.             Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Barling and H. Davies) v. Commission of the European               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Communities (Agent: J. Macdonald Flett) Ð application              1 October 1998, in which it:
for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 96/311/
EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of the accounts
presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                   1. Dismisses the application;
expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
(OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth                    2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,          (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
which it:


title: Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Enso Española, SA against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-348/94 between Enso Española, SA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-282/98 P)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/15
    Article 172 of the EC Treaty: unlike in the case of the                considerably on the ground that such statement of
    other parties involved, the Court did not hold that its                reasons was inadequate;
    finding that the appellant had participated in the cartel
    for a shorter period should be reflected by an
    appropriate reduction in the fine.                                 2. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to
                                                                           the extent to which the Court of First Instance
                                                                           does not consider that, by not taking account of
    When assessing the gravity of the infringement the                     the effects of the devaluation of the peseta against
    Court of First Instance wrongly took the view that the                 the ecu, the Commission infringed the principle of
    absence of economic effects of the infringement was                    equal treatment or, in the alternative, reduce the
    not a mitigating factor in regard to the fine.                         fine so as to take account of that devaluation;
                                                                       3. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to
    Lastly, the Court of First Instance erred in law in
                                                                           the extent to which it does not order the
    finding that the appellant's cooperation should not be
                                                                           Commission to pay, at first instance, the totality of
    taken into account so as to reduce the fine.
                                                                           the costs and interest deriving from the security for
                                                                           or possible payment of all or part of the fine, and
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 32.                                             decide that the interest accruing on the fine
(2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.                                             accrues only from the time at which the judgment
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance becomes enforceable,
                                                                           and consequently order the Commission to pay the
                                                                           costs and interest connected with security for or
                                                                           possible payment of the fine;
Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Enso EspanÄola, SA               2. order the respondent in the proceedings before the
against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay
Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                   the costs, and give a decision to the effect that the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                     costs be paid by the defendant at first instance in the
       T-348/94 between Enso EspanÄola, SA and the                     event of the present appeal being held to be wholly or
         Commission of the European Communities                        partly well founded.
                      (Case C-282/98 P)
                        (98/C 299/25)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May                 Ð Infringement of Community law:
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-348/94 between Enso EspanÄola, SA and the                    Ð misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 190
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         of the Treaty establishing the European
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    Community as regards the lack of a statement of
on 23 July 1998 by Enso EspanÄola, SA, represented by                      the reasons on which the Decision was based in
Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva Contreras                     relation to the fine,
Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at
the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, Avenue                           Ð misinterpretation and misapplication of the
d'Auderghem 78, Brussels.                                                  principle of equal treatment through failure by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance correctly to evaluate the
                                                                           devaluations of the Spanish peseta which gave rise
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                           to an increase in the fine to be paid by ENSO
                                                                           EspanÄola, SA as compared with the fines to be
                                                                           paid by other undertakings whose currencies have
1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
                                                                           not lost value or have indeed increased in value,
    Case T-348/94 (1) to the extent set out below and draw
    all the legal consequences of the setting aside of that
    judgment, whether it gives a decision on the substance             Ð incoherent reasoning on the part of the Court of
    itself or refers the case back to the Court of First                   First Instance regarding its failure to order the
    Instance for judgment, and in particular:                              Commission to pay the costs and interest deriving
                                                                           from the provision of security for or payment of
    1. annul the contested judgment to the extent to                       the fine.
         which it treats the Decision as not infringing
         Article 190 of the EC Treaty as far as the fine is        (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 36.
         concerned and, in consequence, annul the fine on
         the ground of lack of a statement of the reasons
         for the Decision or, in the alternative, reduce it


title: Case C-543/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Woningstichting Maasdriel, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Woningstichting Maasdriel, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
      (Case C-543/11)
      (2012/C 25/56)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel

         Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Question referred

      Must Article 135(1)(k) of the VAT Directive 2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding in all cases the exemption from VAT of the supply of land which has not been built on which has come into existence by the demolition of existing buildings thereon, demolition which was carried out with a view to the construction of new buildings?

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