               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/64

         Action brought on 18 February 2004 by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-74/04)
   (2004/C 94/161)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., having its registered office in Vevey (Switzerland), represented by Jean-Jo Evrard, lawyer.
   Quick Restaurants S.A. was also party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant of 17 December 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for the Community trade mark:

               Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Figurative trade mark ‘QUICKY’ — application No 467 746, filed for products in Classes 29 (meat etc.), 30 (coffee etc.) and 32 (mineral waters etc.)

               Proprietor of the trade mark or sign entering opposition:

               QUICK RESTAURANTS, a public limited company constituted under Belgian law

               Trade mark or sign on the basis of which opposition was made:

               National and international word and figurative trade marks ‘QUICK’ and ‘QUICKIES’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Registration refused

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law relied on:

               Wrongful application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant claims that the trade marks in question are not phonetically and conceptually similar.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p.1)


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001 in Case C-157/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen (Freedom to provide services — Articles 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Sickness insurance — System providing benefits in kind — System of agreements — Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State — Prior authorisation — Criteria — Justification)

text:
C 275/4                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.9.2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    —     authorisation can be refused on the ground of lack of medical
                                                                                necessity only if the same or equally effective treatment can be
                                                                                obtained without undue delay at an establishment having a
                              of 12 July 2001
                                                                                contractual arrangement with the insured person’s sickness
                                                                                insurance fund.
in Case C-157/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the        Arrondissementsrechtbank               te    Roermond):
B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and
H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzeker-                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                  ingen (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Articles 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Sickness insurance — System
providing benefits in kind — System of agreements —
Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State
       — Prior authorisation — Criteria — Justification)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                             (2001/C 275/06)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                       (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                   of 29 May 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      in the European Court Reports)                        the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Armando Caterino (1)
In Case C-157/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis
rechtbank te Roermond (District Court, Roermond) Nether-                    — Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a
lands for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                   directive as against an individual)
before that court between B.S.M. Geraets-Smits and Stichting
Ziekenfonds VGZ and between H.T.M. Peerbooms and Sticht-                                               (2001/C 275/07)
ing CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen — on the interpretation of
Articles 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — the Court;
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,               (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris                                          in the European Court; Reports)
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-            In Case C-311/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                EC from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in                 the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
which it has ruled:                                                         Armando Caterino, on the interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                            Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
                                                                            1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)           91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — the
and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude         Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporte-
legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main            ur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
proceedings, which makes the assumption of the costs of treatment           Judges; S. Alber; Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
provided in a hospital located in another Member State subject to           made an order on 29 May 2001, the operative part of which
prior authorisation from the insured person’s sickness insurance fund       is as follows:
and the grant of such authorisation subject to the condition that
(i) the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal in the professional
circles concerned’, a criterion also applied in determining whether         A directive cannot by itself, and independently of a national law of a
hospital treatment provided on national territory is covered, and           Member State adopted with a view to its application, have the effect
(ii) the insured person’s medical treatment must require that               of determining or aggravating the criminal liability of persons who
treatment. However, that applies only in so far as                          act in breach of its provisions.
—      the requirement that the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal’
       is construed to the effect that authorisation cannot be refused      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       on that ground where it appears that the treatment concerned is
       sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science,
       and


title: Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-57/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/37
Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Alberto Maccaferri                was the subject of the recruitment procedure in question for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 a post of temporary staff member at grade B 1 in another
                        ( Case T-56/96 )                             directorate general, and that neither the applicant nor the
                                                                     other successful candidates were informed of the exchange
                          ( 96/C 180/88 )
                                                                     or given clear, precise and complete reasons justifying it. The
                                                                     applicant states that in so far as the appointing authority
               (Language of the case: French)                        organized the said selection procedure with a view to filling
                                                                     a specific grade A5/A4 post in DG XXIII, the defendant
                                                                     institution breached the rules for filling vacant posts by
An action against the Commission of the European                     derogating in the present case from the rule requiring it to do
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    so by appointing a candidate whose name is on the list of
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1 996 by            suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board;
Alberto Maccaferri, of Bologna ( Italy ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             misuse of powers, in that it is apparent, according to the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          applicant, that the real motive for the exchange of posts at
at the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener .                  issue was the recruitment as a temporary staff member at
                                                                     grade B 1 of a candidate chosen in advance, although the
                                                                     requirements of the service compelled the Commission to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         conclude a contact for services with a private undertaking in
                                                                     order for the applicant to be made available to it,
— annul the decision not to appoint the applicant to the
     post which was the subject of selection procedure               breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     62T/XXIII/93 with a view to filling the post of A4/5            expectations. Both the applicant and the other successful
     temporary staff member in Directorate-General XXIII             candidates in selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 could
     — ' Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and         legitimately expect the post which was the subject of
     Cooperatives ', sector for implementation of                    competition to be filled by the recruitment of one of
     administrative simplification in the Community,                 them .
— annul the decision to transfer the budgeted post of a
     temporary staff member at level A4/5 from DG XXIII to
     another directorate general and to replace it with the
     budgeted post of a temporary staff member at level
     B,
                                                                     Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-57/96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                                ( 96/C 180/89 )
The applicant challenges the Commission's decision not to                            (Language of the case: Italian)
appoint him to an A5/A4 post in DG XXIII which was the
subject of selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 despite his
having been included on the list of successful candidates . By       An action against the Commission of the European
a note from the Director of Directorate B, ' Community               Communities was brought before the Court of First
action to assist enterprises', the Director-General of               Instance on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini, an official in
DG XXIII was asked to 'take the appropriate steps' for him           the Commissions' scientific and technical services, working
to be recruited as quickly as possible . Nothing came of that        at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
request .                                                            represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with right of
                                                                     appearance before the Corte di Cassazione of the Italian
                                                                     Republic , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant observes that he entered the service of the            chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 Commission in 1993 as a member of the auxiliary staff, and
that when his contract as an auxiliary staff member expired
he was recruited by a private company in order to be made            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 available to DG XXIII of the Commission to perform the
work he did as a member of the auxiliary staff.
                                                                     — annul the refusal to pay him the installation allowance
                                                                         and daily subsistence allowance,
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
 support of his application :                                        — declare that the Commission is required to pay him the
                                                                         sums payable under Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to
 breach of the rules for filling vacant posts and of the duty to         the Staff Regulations or such sums as may be arrived at
state reasons. In the procedure at issue it is apparent that the         by recalculation of his allowances in accordance with
 appointing authority exchanged the budgeted post which                  Article 38 of the Staff Regulations,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 180/38           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
— order that interest be paid on all the above sums at the          Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban
    rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the time of                   against the European Parliament
     payment ,                                                                             ( Case T-59/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/90 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Frencb)
Contentions       and   principal  arguments      adduced     in
support:                                                            An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban,
The applicant, an official in the Commission' scientific and        residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the
technical services at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra ,            Paris Bar, with an adress for service at the Chambers of
maintains that it is unlawful to refuse to pay him the              Aloyse May , 31 Grand-Rue .
installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on
his return from a period of external service with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna . The contested          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision is based on the view that the applicant would              — award compensation in the sum of ECU 100 000 for the
neither encounter particular difficulties in resettling into the        material damage, and ECU 100 000 for the
environment which he had earlier left or nor need to effect
                                                                        non-material damage, suffered by the applicant,
removals again, having returned to his own dwelling in
Italy.                                                              — order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
According to the applicant, the provisions of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Regulations concerning the installation allowance relate
only to the objective fact that the person concerned is             The applicant, a grade A 4 official of the European
obliged to change his place of residence in order to comply         Parliament, seeks reparation for the material and
with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter provision     non-material damage suffered by him by reason of the delay
lays down no further requirement and takes account of no            in drawing up his staff reports for the periods 1991 — 1992
other factor .                                                      and 1993—1994 .
                                                                    He considers that the defendant has not only breached the
It is true that the case-law has clarified the scope of the         principle whereby staff reports are to be drawn up on a
provisions of the Staff Regulations, but it has done so in          regular and periodic basis, but has also failed to adopt any
factual circumstances where legal preconditions were not            measure in lieu capable of remedying the absence of such
fulfilled ( failure to move house or be accompanied by              reports at the time when consideration of the comparative
members of one's family, transfers at one's own request and         merits of internal candidates took place .
for personal reasons, and so on ) or else in relation to
conduct intended to evade legal provisions . That case-law          The applicant draws attention in that regard to the
has nothing to do with this case, where the applicant and his       questionable nature of the only report, relating to 1989 , on
family both duly moved to another State, a residence was            the basis of which the appointing authority examined all of
rented in Austria and there was a compulsory transfer back          the applicant's applications from 1990 onwards . He
to Italy .                                                          contends that, in drawing up that report, the former head of
                                                                    the defendant's Information Office for France misused his
As regards the return to the applicant's dwelling in Italy,         powers as reporting officer, with a view to being replaced in
which involved a genuine financial sacrifice for the applicant      his post as Assistant Director not by the applicant, his
since — both because of the certain date of his return and the      natural successor, but by a personal friend outside the
legal difficulties of regaining possession of the dwelling in       European Parliament, by means of an external
Italy after renting it out — he had to bear throughout the          competition .
period in question the financial burdens and operating
expenses of two residences .
As regards the refusal to pay him the daily subsistence
allowance, the applicant maintains that the payment of such         Action brought on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro
allowances is based on the very circumstances described                    Avilés against Commission of the European
above, in other words a change of residence by an official in                                 Communities
order to comply with his obligations under Article 20 of the
                                                                                ( Case T-61 /96 )
Staff Regulations . The only difference from the 'case of the
installation allowance lies in the fact that the daily                                       ( 96/C 180/91 )
subsistence allowance is paid until removal or for a
maximum period of six months . The difference is thus only a                      (Language of the case: Spanisb)
question of time .
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro Avilés,


title: Case T-540/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — Esso and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the infringement — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Esso and Others v Commission
   (Case T-540/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   2014/C 292/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Esso Société anonyme française (Courbevoie, France); Esso Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium); and Exxon Mobil Corp. (West Trenton, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, R. Snelders, L.-P. Rudolf and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) and for the reduction of the fine it imposes on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Esso Société anonyme française in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) at EUR 6 2 7 12  895;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Esso Société anonyme française;

               4.

               Orders Esso Deutschland GmbH, ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA and Exxon Mobil Corp. to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-371/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danfoss A/S, AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2) — Supplies of services carried out free of charge by a taxable person for purposes other than those of his business — Right to deduct VAT — Second subparagraph of Article 17(6) — Member States' option to retain exclusions from the right to deduct which were provided for under their national laws when the Sixth Directive came into force)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danfoss A/S, AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-371/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2) - Supplies of services carried out free of charge by a taxable person for purposes other than those of his business - Right to deduct VAT - Second subparagraph of Article 17(6) - Member States' option to retain exclusions from the right to deduct which were provided for under their national laws when the Sixth Directive came into force)
   (2009/C 32/11)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Vestre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Danfoss A/S, AstraZeneca A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 6(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct tax relating to meals provided free of charge to staff and clients in a company canteen — Possibility for the Member States to maintain their legislation excluding the right to deduct on the date of entry into force of the Directive
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from applying, after the entry into force of the Sixth Directive, an exclusion from the right to deduct input value added tax on expenditure in respect of meals provided by company canteens free of charge to business contacts and staff in the course of work meetings, where, at the moment when the Sixth Directive entered into force, that exclusion was not actually applied to that expenditure because of an administrative practice of taxing services provided by company canteens at cost price, that is to say, the price of the raw materials plus the cost of wages for preparation and sale of the food and drinks and the administration of the canteens, in return for the right to deduct input value added tax in full;

               2)

               Article 6(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted in such a way that, on the one hand, it does not cover the provision, free of charge, of meals in company canteens to business contacts in the course of meetings held on the company premises where objective evidence indicates — this being a matter for the referring court to determine — that those meals are provided for strictly business-related purposes. On the other hand, Article 6(2) applies in principle to the provision, free of charge, of meals by a company to its staff on its premises, unless — this likewise being a matter for the referring court to determine — the needs of the company, such as the need to ensure that work meetings are run smoothly and without interruptions, require the employer to ensure that meals are provided.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-208/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having its registered office there — Company exercising its freedom of establishment in another Member State — Company deemed to have transferred its actual centre of administration to the host Member State under the law of that State — Non-recognition by the host Member State of the company's legal capacity and its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Restriction on freedom of establishment — Justification)

text:
C 323/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
L 261, p. 1), Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 or
Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, Article 1(2) of Regu-
lation No 2241/87, or Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93,
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                                          of 5 November 2002
dent of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  in Case C-208/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
on 14 November 2002, in which it:
                                                                             from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Überseering BV v Nordic
                                                                              Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) (1)
1.    Declares that, in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996,
      by:                                                                    (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in accordance
                                                                             with the law of a Member State and having its registered
                                                                             office there — Company exercising its freedom of establish-
                                                                             ment in another Member State — Company deemed to have
      —     failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the       transferred its actual centre of administration to the host
            utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and to carry out       Member State under the law of that State — Non-recognition
            the inspections and other controls required by the relevant      by the host Member State of the company’s legal capacity
            Community regulations,                                           and its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings —
                                                                                Restriction on freedom of establishment — Justification)
      —     failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas
            were exhausted,
                                                                                (2002/C 323/13)
      —     failing to take administrative or penal action against the
            masters of vessels infringing those regulations or against                          (Language of the case: German)
            any other person responsible for such infringement,
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has                               in the European Court Reports)
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
      management of fishery resources and, with effect from 1 January
      1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92
      of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
      fisheries and aquaculture, as well as Article 1(1) of Council          In Case C-208/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing               EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      certain control measures for fishing activities and, with effect
      from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)             Überseering BV and Nordic Construction Company Bauma-
                                                                             nagement GmbH (NCC), on the interpretation of Articles 43
      No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
      system applicable to the common fisheries policy, Article 11(2)        EC and 48 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
      of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January               President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
                                                                             R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      1994, Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, and Article 1(2)
      of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January               D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
                                                                             N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
      1994, Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93;
                                                                             D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
                                                                             pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             5 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                             1.    Where a company formed in accordance with the law of a
                                                                                Member State (‘A’) in which it has its registered office is
                                                                                deemed, under the law of another Member State (‘B’), to have
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                        moved its actual centre of administration to Member State B,
                                                                                Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude Member State B from
                                                                                denying the company legal capacity and, consequently, the
                                                                                capacity to bring legal proceedings before its national courts for
                                                                                the purpose of enforcing rights under a contract with a company
                                                                                established in Member State B.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/13
2.    Where a company formed in accordance with the law of a                1.    Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of
      Member State (‘A’) in which it has its registered office exercises          24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties
      its freedom of establishment in another Member State (‘B’),                 or export duties which have not been required of the person
      Articles 43 EC and 48 EC require Member State B to recognise                liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
      the legal capacity and, consequently, the capacity to be a party            involving the obligation to pay such duties must be interpreted
      to legal proceedings which the company enjoys under the law of              as meaning that:
      its State of incorporation (’A’).
                                                                                —     in order to determine whether there is an ’error made by
( 1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                                the competent authorities themselves’, account must be
                                                                                taken both of the conduct of the customs authorities
                                                                                which issued the certificate permitting the application of
                                                                                preferential treatment and of that of the central customs
                                                                                authorities;
                                                                                —     the routine issuing by the authorities of the exporting
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                country of certificates permitting the application of prefer-
                                                                                ential treatment under association rules constitutes evi-
                                                                                dence of such an error when those authorities must have
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                been aware, on the one hand, of the existence in the
                                                                                exporting country of a policy of encouraging exports,
                        of 14 November 2002                                             involving the duty-free importation of components orig-
                                                                                inating in third countries for incorporation in goods
                                                                                intended for export to the Community and, on the other
in Case C-251/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                               hand, of the absence in the exporting country of provisions
the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa ):                              enabling collection of the compensatory levy to which the
Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda v Chefe da                                  application of preferential treatment to exports to the
Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção                                  Community of goods thus obtained was subject;
das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third party: Ministério Púb-
                                  lico (1)
                                                                                —     the fact that some of the relevant provisions of the
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of                                      association rules were not published in the Official Journal
television sets from Turkey — Determination of the person                               of the European Communities and the circumstance
liable for the customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of                                that those provisions were not implemented, or were
                             customs duties)                                            implemented incorrectly, in the exporting country over a
                                                                                period of more than 20 years constitute evidence that such
                                                                                an error could not reasonably have been detected by the
                            (2002/C 323/14)                                             person liable.
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            2.    The conduct of the authorities of the exporting country does not
                                                                                affect the determination of the person by whom the customs
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            debt is payable or the right of the authorities of the importing
                     in the European Court Reports)                               country to take action for post-clearance recovery thereof.
                                                                            3.    Articles 22 and 25 of the Agreement establishing an associ-
In Case C-251/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                ation between the European Economic Community and Turkey
EC by the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa
                                                                                do not require the national customs authorities of a Member
(Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                                State, acting on the Commission’s advice, to have recourse to
before that court between Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e
                                                                                the procedure provided for by those articles before taking action
Electrónica L da and Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos
                                                                                for post-clearance recovery of import duties.
Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third
party: Ministério Público, on the interpretation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and on
the validity of a Commission decision, the Court (Fifth                     (1 ) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
er, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-549/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Nemeco/OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/21

         Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Nemeco/OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)
   (Case T-549/12)
   2013/C 63/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nemeco (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Gaspar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision rendered by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Marked (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) on October 16, 2012 (Case No. R 266/2012-2);

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay Nemeco’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘NU’, for goods in class 32 — International Registration No 1 033 122 designating the European Union

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5386081 of the word mark ‘NU YU’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/1

         2009/C 256/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

      OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

      OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

      OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

      OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-218/02: Action brought on 18 July 2002 by Daniela Napoli Buzzanca against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
The applicant further claims that there has been an infringe-              Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of the principle of equal treatment and argues that two
separate valuation methods are applied in the decision under
challenge. For the valuation of the shares which it was forced             The applicant, a grade A 3 official working in the External
to purchase, the decision applies a nominal price, which,                  Relations Directorate-General, is contesting the rejection by
however, according to the applicant, was much higher than                  the appointing authority of her application for the post of
the true value of the shares. For the valuation of the shares              director of Directorate B (Multilateral relations and human
which the applicant transferred to the Regional Authority for              rights).
Wallonia by way of payment, however, the decision applies
the real value of the shares, which at that time was considered
to be zero.                                                                In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                           —     infringement of Articles 7, 27, 29(1)(a) and 45 of the
In conclusion, the applicant argues that there has been an
infringement of the principle that reasons must be given.                        Staff Regulations, breach of the principle that officials
                                                                                should have reasonable career prospects and of the
                                                                                principle of non-discrimination, and non-compliance
                                                                                with the terms of the vacancy notice. She considers in
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                that regard that, by omitting to carry out an examination
     down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
     Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83 of 27.3.1999, pp 1 to 9).                              of the comparative merits of the candidates, the appoint-
                                                                                ing authority ultimately took into consideration an
                                                                                application for the post which manifestly failed to fulfil
                                                                                the conditions laid down by the vacancy notice;
                                                                           —     non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
                                                                                ment of reasons.
Action brought on 18 July 2002 by Daniela Napoli
Buzzanca against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                          (Case T-218/02)
                                                                           Action brought on 22 July 2002 by Antonio Silva against
                         (2002/C 247/25)                                            Commission of the European Communities
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                    (Case T-220/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/26)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                     (Language of the case: French)
European Communities on 18 July 2002 by Daniela Napoli
Buzzanca, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 22 July 2002 by Antonio Silva,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
—      annul the decisions of the appointing authority, probably           Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
       adopted on 30 January 2002, appointing Ms S. as
       director, in grade A 2, of Directorate B (Multilateral
       relations and human rights) of the External Relations               The applicant claims that the Court should:
       Directorate-General (RELEX) and rejecting the application
       of the applicant for that post;                                     —     annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
                                                                                the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions
—      order the defendant to pay damages assessed, as at the                    procedure, as evidenced by the publication in Adminis-
       date of the action and subject to possible increase, in the               trative Information No 72/2001 of 14 August 2001 of
       sum of 23 213,96 euros;                                                   the list of officials promoted to that grade;
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 17 October 2003 in the case of Götz Leffler against Berlin Chemie AG, a company incorporated under German law (Case C-443)

text:
13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 304/17
within Directive 78/686/EEC are at a disadvantage in Austria                       the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
because they must use the professional title ‘dentist’ there,                      obligations under Article 18(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC,
while they are in direct competition with ‘specialists in dental,                  or has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of
oral and maxillo-facial surgery’. Furthermore, nationals of                        Directive 92/43/EEC to comply with the directive;
other Member States staying in Austria must be able to rely on
an unambiguous title. Otherwise uncertainty is created which                 —     declare that Article 13(3) of the Natuurbeschermingswet
could harm all patients from the Community. Since a ‘specialist                    (law on the protection of nature) is contrary to Article 6(4)
in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ is regarded under the                  of Directive 92/43/EEC;
contested Law as a ‘specialist’ and a ‘dentist’ is regarded as a
‘doctor’, it is clear that a specialist falling within Article 19b of
Directive 78/686/EEC does not practice under the same                        —     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
conditions as a ‘dentist’.
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Although the Commission can in principle accept the measures
                                                                             which the Netherlands has proposed in order to remedy the
                                                                             failure found by the Commission in its formal notice of default,
                                                                             the Commission must find that at the present time the
                                                                             Netherlands is still in default since the proposed measures have
                                                                             not yet been adopted or brought into force.
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                             (1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
                             Netherlands                                     (2) OJ L 206 of 22 July 1992, p. 7.
                           (Case C-441/03)
                           (2003/C 304/25)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                             Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 17 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                             2003 in the case of Götz Leffler against Berlin Chemie
15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                                AG, a company incorporated under German law
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, as agent.
                                                                                (Case C-443)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,                                             (2003/C 304/26)
     regulations and administrative provisions in order to:
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
            lands under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Council                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                 European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
            wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), or in any event by failing          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 17 Octo-
            to inform the Commission of those provisions, and                ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2003,
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Götz Leffler against
                                                                             Berlin Chemie AG, a company incorporated under German
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                             law on the following questions:
            lands under Article 6(1), in conjunction with
            Article 2(1) and Article 1(a), (e) and (i), and
            Articles 6(2), (3) and (4), 7, 11, 14(1) and (2), and            1.    Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation (1) be construed as
            15 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the                        meaning that, in the event of refusal by an addressee to
            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                     accept a document on the ground of failure to comply
            and flora, (2) or in any event by failing to inform the                with the language requirement laid down in Article 8(1),
            Commission thereof,                                                    it is possible for the sender to rectify that failure?
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         13.12.2003
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: must                      —     the Member State of the parent company:
      refusal to accept the document be deemed to have the
      effect in law of rendering the service inoperative in its
      entirety?                                                                       —     subjects a company resident within its territory
                                                                                to corporation tax on its total profits, including
                                                                                the profits of branches in other Member States,
3.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:                                    with arrangements for the availability of double
                                                                                taxation relief for those taxes incurred in
      (a)   Within what period of time and in what manner                                   another Member State and under which branch
            must the translation be brought to the attention of                             losses are taken account of in those taxable
            the addressee? Must notification of the translation                             profits;
            satisfy the conditions which the Regulation imposes
            on the service of documents or can the manner of
            dispatch be freely determined?                                            —     does not subject the undistributed profits of
                                                                                subsidiaries resident in other Member States to
                                                                                corporation tax;
      (b) Does national procedural law apply in respect of the
            possibility of rectifying the failure?
                                                                                —     subjects the parent company to corporation
                                                                                tax on any distributions to it by way of dividend
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the                              by the subsidiaries resident in other Member
    service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial docu-                        States while not subjecting the parent company
    ments in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).                            to corporation tax on distributions by way of
                                                                                dividend by subsidiary companies resident in
                                                                                the State of the parent;
                                                                                —     grants double taxation relief to the parent
                                                                                company by way of a credit in respect of
                                                                                withholding tax on dividends and foreign taxes
                                                                                paid on the profits in respect of which divi-
                                                                                dends are paid by subsidiary companies resi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                                     dent in other Member States;
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
of that court dated 16 July 2003, in the case of Marks &
Spencer plc against David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes)                        is there a restriction under Article 43 EC, in conjunction
                                                                                with Article 48 EC? If so, is it justified under Community
                                                                                law?
                         (Case C-446/03)
                                                                           2.   (a)   What difference, if any, does it make to the answer
                         (2003/C 304/27)                                              to Question 1 that, depending on the law of the
                                                                                Member State of the subsidiary, it is or may be
                                                                                possible in certain circumstances to obtain relief for
                                                                                some or all of the losses incurred by the subsidiary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                against taxable profits in the State of the subsidiary?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 16 July                     (b) If it does make a difference, what significance, if any,
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 October                          is to be attached to the fact that:
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marks & Spencer
plc and David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) on the following
questions:                                                                            —     a subsidiary resident in another Member State
                                                                                has now ceased trading and, although there is
1.    In circumstances where:                                                               provision for loss relief subject to certain
                                                                                conditions in that State, there is no evidence
                                                                                that in the circumstances such relief was
      —     provisions of a Member State, such as the UK                                    obtained;
            provisions on group relief, prevent a parent com-
            pany which is resident for tax purposes in that State
            from reducing its taxable profits in that State by                        —     a subsidiary resident in another Member State
            setting off losses incurred in other Member States                              has been sold to a third party and, although
            by subsidiary companies which are resident for tax                              there is provision under the law of that State
            purposes in those States, where such set off would                              for the losses to be used under certain con-
            be possible if the losses were incurred by subsidiary                           ditions by a third party purchaser, it is uncertain
            companies resident in the State of the parent                                   whether they were so used in the circumstances
            company;                                                                        of the case;


title: Case C-220/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-220/14 P)
   2014/C 235/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (represented by: I. Burton, J. Binns, Solicitors, J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014, in Case T-256/11;

               —

               Annul Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) of 21 March 2011 and Regulation No 270/2011 (2) of 21 March 2011, in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants;

               —

               Order that the Council pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court; and

               —

               Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 20 May 2011, the Appellants applied to the General Court to annul the Decision and the Regulation in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants (‘Application’). The General Court rejected that Application. The Appellants maintained that, in doing so, the General Court erred in law for the following reasons:

               1)

               First Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Decision was lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU.

               2)

               Second Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Ground for imposing restrictive measures against each of the Appellants was substantiated and/or satisfied the legal criteria for listing set out in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation.

               3)

               Third Plea: The General Court erred in its finding that the Council had complied with its obligation to state reasons.

               4)

               Fourth Plea: The General Court erred in its examination of the Appellant’s pleas in respect of infringement of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               5)

               Fifth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellants’ property and/or freedom to conduct a business was proportionate.

               6)

               Sixth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that there was no ‘manifest error of assessment’ by the Council.

      (1)  OJ L 76, p. 63

      (2)  OJ L 76, p. 4


title: Case T-716/14: Action brought on 9 October 2014 — Tweedale/EFSA

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/33

         Action brought on 9 October 2014 — Tweedale/EFSA
   (Case T-716/14)
   (2014/C 448/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Antony C. Tweedale (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that EFSA acted in violation of the Aarhus Convention, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 concerning the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011;

               —

               annul EFSA’s decision of 30 July 2014;

               —

               order EFSA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(4) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (‘Aarhus Convention’) as approved by the Council Decision 2005/370/EC, of 17 February 2005, as well as in breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to Community institutions and bodies (‘the Aarhus Regulation’) and of Article 4(2) of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In breach of these provisions EFSA did not recognise in the contested Decision the obligation to disclose information relating to emissions into the environment contained in the documents requested.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested Decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of its obligation to act in compliance with an Aarhus Convention compliant interpretation of the ground of refusal laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on the basis of Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Senior Engineering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Directive 69/335 — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — National rules taxing a (subsidiary) company by way of capital duty in respect of a contribution made by its parent company (the grandparent company) in favour of its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary company) — Capital duty — Increase of capital — Payment  to the share premium account  — Increase in the assets of the company — Increase in the value of shares — Provision of services by a member — Payment made by a member of a member — Payment to a subsidiary —  Real recipient  — Levying of capital duty once only (in the Community) — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Freedom of establishment — National practice exempting a (subsidiary) capital company from taxation only if its subsidiary (sub-subsidiary company) is also established in that Member State)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Senior Engineering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (Directive 69/335 - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - National rules taxing a (subsidiary) company by way of capital duty in respect of a contribution made by its parent company (the grandparent company) in favour of its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary company) - Capital duty - Increase of capital - Payment ‘to the share premium account’ - Increase in the assets of the company - Increase in the value of shares - Provision of services by a member - Payment made by a member of a member - Payment to a subsidiary - ‘Real recipient’ - Levying of capital duty once only (in the Community) - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) - Freedom of establishment - National practice exempting a (subsidiary) capital company from taxation only if its subsidiary (sub-subsidiary company) is also established in that Member State)
   (2006/C 60/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the Court on 24 November 2003, in the proceedings Senior Engineering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits,, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:
   In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, read in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof and the sixth recital in its preamble, precludes a Member State from levying duty on a (subsidiary) capital company in respect of a contribution paid by its parent company (the grandparent company) to its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary).

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.


title: Case T-398/14: Action brought on 5 June 2014  — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/11

         Action brought on 5 June 2014 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)
   (Case T-398/14)
   2014/C 361/14
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Krahl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 April 2014 in Case R 1896/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50  518 with respect to Class 28 to be revoked;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50  518

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lego Juris A/S

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-157/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/25

         Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-157/05)
   (2005/C 171/41)
   Language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer.
   PCS Systemtechnik GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 February 2005 in appeal proceedings R 248/2004-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark ‘T-PCS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (application no 1077304).

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               PCS Systemtechnik GmbH

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Word mark ‘PCS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 42 (Community trade mark No 628149).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition allowed and application no 1077304 refused.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               The decision of the Board of Appeal infringes the final half-sentence of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, there being no likelihood of confusion between the marks being compared.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case C-306/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Secretary of State for the Environment (Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Authorisation for placing on the market — Assessment of an application for authorisation — Transitional period)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 200/9
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 May 2001
                            of 3 May 2001
                                                                            in Case C-347/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-306/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                      ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Secretary of State for                  (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Social security
                         the Environment (1)                                — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13(2)(f) —
                                                                            Legislation of a Member State providing for social security
                                                                            contributions to be levied on occupational disease benefits
(Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products —                         payable to persons who do not reside in that State and are
Authorisation for placing on the market — Assessment of                              no longer subject to its social security scheme)
   an application for authorisation — Transitional period)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/16)
                           (2001/C 200/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-306/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                    in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-                  In Case C-347/98: Commission of the European Communities
isional Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the             (Agents: D. Gouloussis and P. Hillenkamp) v Kingdom of
proceedings pending before that court between The Queen                     Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by E. Gillet and G. Vander-
and Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Secretary of               sanden), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsanto plc, intervener:              M.A. Fierstra and I. van der Steen) — application for a
I Pi Ci SpA, Clayton Plant Protection Ltd and British Agrochem-             declaration that, by levying personal contributions of 13,07 %
icals Association Ltd (BAA) — on the interpretation of                      on Belgian occupational disease pensions payable to persons
Articles 8(2) and (3) and 13(6) of Council Directive                        who do not reside in Belgium and are no longer subject to the
91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant                  Belgian social security scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has
protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) —                   failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council
the Court, composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges;                  application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the              self-employed persons and to members of their families
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it                  moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
has ruled:                                                                  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
                                                                            1997 L 28, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                            of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-
Article 8(3) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
                                                                            P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
                                                                            Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
does not apply where, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the directive, an
                                                                            given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it:
application is submitted to a Member State for first authorisation to
place on the market a generic plant protection product containing an
active substance not listed in Annex I to the abovementioned directive,     1.    Dismisses the application;
which is already on the domestic market two years after notification
of that directive, with the consequence that that Member State is not       2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
under an obligation to assess such an application in accordance with              the costs;
the requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f),
of that directive.                                                          3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                  (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.


title: Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-151/98)

text:
21.11.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/21
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Council                    Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Azienda
of European Municipalities and Regions against the                    Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara
         Commission of the European Communities                                  against Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-151/98)                                                       (Case T-152/98)
                        (98/C 358/38)                                                         (98/C 358/39)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 22 September 1998 by the Council of                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
European       Municipalities     and     Regions     (CEMR),         brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
established in Paris, represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic,             1998 by Azienda Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Vincenzo e Clara, represented by Massimo Moretto,
Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                   Roberto Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice,
rue Charles Martel.                                                   Padua and Bari Bars respectively, with an address for
                                                                      service in Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue
                                                                      des Nerviens.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
should:
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European                should:
     Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
     concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, issued on
     15 July 1998, by which the Commission refuses to pay
     to the CEMR a balance of ECU 204 446 and claims                  Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
     from the CEMR a balance of ECU 300 173;                              Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
                                                                          fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
                                                                          intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
                                                                          beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
                                                                          costs (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
The applicant, which is already contesting before the                     1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
Court of First Instance an initial debit note concerning the              standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
European City Cooperation System (ECOS) project, in
which the Commission refused to approve certain
expenses and effected a reduction of the Community co-                Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
financing granted in the context of the RECITE                            Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
programme (1), is seeking in the present case annulment of                of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
a fresh debit note, dated 15 July 1998, which purports to                 applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
cancel and replace the previous note. In that second note,                an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
the Commission is still refusing to pay to the applicant a
balance of ECU 204 446 and is claiming from the
applicant, not the sum of ECU 363 336 originally
demanded, but the sum of ECU 300 173.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant states that, even though it does not consider
that its claim in Case T-46/98 has become devoid of                   The applicant in this case, an agricultural undertaking
purpose, it has had to bring the present action as a                  producing beet, contests Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 to
precautionary measure, in consequence of the position                 the extent to which, by treating Italy as a non-deficit area,
adopted by the Commission in the first case.                          within the meaning of the basic regulation applicable to
                                                                      the sugar sector, it fails to set a derived intervention price
                                                                      for white sugar for all areas of Italy. It adds that since the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                   establishment of the common organisation of the market
those advanced in Case T-46/98.                                       in sugar, Italy has always been regarded as a deficit area.
(1) Case T-46/98, OJ C 151, 16.5.1998, p. 11.
                                                                      In support of its claim, the applicant states, first, that
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 is unlawful in that it


title: Case C-304/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on  9 July 2008 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2008 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-304/08)
   (2008/C 247/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Defendant: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH
   Question referred
   Is Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that that provision precludes a national provision which states that a commercial practice whereby the participation of consumers in a prize competition or lottery is made conditional on the purchase of goods or the supply of services is in principle unlawful, irrespective of whether, in any particular case, the advertising in question affects consumers' interests?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.