title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 25 June 1997 in the case of Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt and Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt v. Belgian State (Case C-247/97)

text:
No C 252/22                    EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 8 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsratt                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
by order of that court of 11 June 1997 in the case brought                   Cassatie van Belgie by judgment of that court of 30 June
by Skandia Insurance Company (publ), 103 50 Stockholm                        1997 in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against
                                                                                Gerdina Lustig
                                Case C-241 /97)
                                                                                ( Case C-244/97 )
                                 ( 97/C 252/44
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/45
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Regeringsratt                        European Communities by judgment of the Hof van
of 11 June 1997, which was received at the Court Registry                    Cassatie van Belgie ( Belgian Court of Cassation ) of 30 June
on 2 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case                         1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 July 1997, for a
brought by Skandia Insurance Company ( publ ) on the                         preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor
following questions:                                                         Pensioenen against Gerdina Lustig on the following
                                                                             question:
1 . Is it compatible with Article 18 ( 1 ) of Directive 73/
        239/EEC { l ), as amended by Article 26 of Directive                 Is Article 49 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71
        92/49/EEC (2 ) and with Article 21 ( 1 ) of Directive 79/            in conjunction with Article 45 of that Regulation to be
        267/EEC ( 3 ), as amended by Article 27 of Directive                 interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned
        92/96/EEC (4), for national legislation to prescribe                 fulfils the conditions laid down by one legislation for
        that, so far as an insurance company's free assets ( i.e.            entitlement to an old-age pension, albeit a limited one,
        those assets not used to cover the technical provisions )            without having recourse to periods of insurance completed
        are concerned, the insurance company may not,                        under another legislation whose conditions of pension
        without special administrative authorization, own                    entitlement are not satisfied, the competent national
        more shares in a domestic or foreign joint-stock                     authority is nevertheless obliged to take into account
        company than corresponds to 5 % of the votes                         periods completed under the latter legislation where that
        attached to all the shares ?                                         could result in the award of a greater old-age pension up
                                                                             until such time as the conditions laid down under the
                                                                             latter legislation are fulfilled ?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative :
2.      Are the aforementioned Articles of the Directive of
        such a character, as regards clarity and so forth, that
        they have the consequence that a national court must                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
        disregard a national provision having the tenor                      Cassation, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 25 June
        described above when called upon to examine the task                 1997 in the case of Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc
        of examining the permissibility of an insurance                      Schoonbroodt and Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt v.
        company's investments of its free assets ?                                                          Belgian State
                                                                                ( Case C-247/97)
(') First Council Directive ( 73/239/EEC ) of 24 July 1993 on the
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                                                ( 97/C 252/46 )
       provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business
       of direct insurance other than life assurance ( OJ No L 228 ,
       16 . 8 . 1973 , p. 3 ).
 ( 2 ) Council Directive ( 92/49/EEC) of 18 June 1992 on the                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                  European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
       provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance      Cassation ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 25 June 1997,
       and amending Directives 73/329/EEC and 88/357/EEC ( OJ No             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1997,
       L 228 , 11 . 8 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marcel
 ( 3 ) First Council Directive ( 79/267/EEC ) of 5 March 1979 on the
                                                                              Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt and Transports A. M.
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business       Schoonbroodt v. Belgian State, on the following questions:
       of direct life assurance ( OJ No L 63 , 13 . 3 . 1979 , p. 1 .).
 ( 4 ) Council Directive ( 92/96/EEC ) of 10 November 1992 on the
       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                   Are tanks fixed to containers equipped with a
       provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending              refrigeration system and intended for long-distance road
       Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/61 9/EEC ( OJ No L 360, 9 . 12 .
                                                                              haulage to be regarded as ' standard' tanks within the
       1992, p. 1 ).
                                                                              meaning of Article 112 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 918/83
                                                                              setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs
                                                                              duty (*), as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1315/88 ( 2),
                                                                              where :
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 252/23
1 . those tanks have been permanently fixed by one of the                undertaking's activities, and the Bankruptcy and Probate
      manufacturer's dealers or by a coachbuilder, with a                Court subsequently, and without any deferment other than
      permanent fitting enabling fuel to be used directly                that resulting from the time which that court requires to
      both for the purposes of propulsion and for the                    examine the matter, issues a winding-up decree pursuant
      operation of refrigeration systems; and                            to the winding-up petition and takes the date of that
                                                                         winding-up petition as the operative date ?
2 . the aim of that fitting is to provide the haulage unit —             (') Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the
      driving unit and container — with a sufficient fuel                      approximation of tha laws of the Member States relating to
      range to :                                                               collective redundancies ( OJ No L 48 , 22 . 2 . 1975 , p. 29 ).
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 245 , 26 . 8 . 1992, p. 3 .
      ( a ) avoid difficulties in obtaining fuel in countries
             where availability is uncertain and where the poor
             quality of refining makes such fuel dangerous for
             vehicles,
       ( b) avoid the need to obtain fuel at sometimes                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by decision of the
             prohibitive prices in countries where it is too             Conseil d'Etat, France of 28 March 1997 in the case of
             expensive,                                                  Societe Baxter, Societe B. Braun Medical SA, Societe
                                                                         Fresenius France and Societe Anonyme des Laboratoires
                                                                                Bristol-Myers Squibb against French State
       ( c ) avoid the administrative difficulties involved in the
             need to recover value added tax in the countries                                         Case C-254/97 )
             where it has been charged, and                                                            97/C 252/48
       ( d ) use as few fuel supply points as possible in order
             to be able to negotiate the best prices with fuel           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
             companies ?                                                 European Communities by a decision of the Conseil d'Etat
                                                                         ( Council of State ), France, of 28 March 1997, received at
                                                                         the Court Registry on 14 July 1997, for a preliminary
(') OJ No L 105 , 23 . 4 . 1983 , p . 1 .                                ruling in the case of Societe Baxter, Societe B. Braun
( 2 ) OJ No L 123 , 17 . 5 . 1988 , p . 2 .                              Medical        SA,    Societe    Fresenius   France      and      Societe
                                                                         Anonyme des Laboratoires Bristol-Myers Squibb against
                                                                         French State on the following questions:
                                                                          1 . Do Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957
                                                                                establishing the European Community preclude
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Civilret,                             domestic legislation, enacted in 1996, which imposes a
Hillered, by decision of 4 July 1997 in the case of Dansk                       special tax for that year, the rate of which is to be
Metalarbejderforbund, acting on behalf of John Lauge and                        fixed between 1,5% and 2% , on the net turnover,
               Others, v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                            achieved in the State of taxation between 1 January
                            ( Case C-250/97)                                    1995 and 31 December 1995 by undertakings trading
                                                                                in proprietary medicinal products, in reimburseable
                              ( 97/C 252/47 )                                   proprietary medicinal products and medicinal products
                                                                                approved for use by public bodies and which allows
                                                                                costs accounted for during that same period in respect
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of expenditure only on research carried out in the
                                                                                State of taxation to be deducted from the amount
European Communities by decision of 4 July 1997 from                            taxable ?
the Civilret ( Civil Court), Hillerod, which was received at
the Court Registry on 9 July 1997, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Dansk Metalarbejderforbund ( Danish                 2 . Does Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the
Metalworkers' Federation), acting on behalf of John                             European Community preclude such legislation ?
Lauge and Others, v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond
 ( Employees ' Guarantee Fund ) on the following question:
                                                                          3 . In the event that either of the previous questions is
                                                                                answered in the negative, is the deductibility from the
Does the phrase 'collective redundancies arising from                           taxable amount of expenditure on research carried out
termination of the establishment's activities as a result of a                  in the State of taxation to be considered aid within the
 judicial decision' ( see Article 3 ( 1 ), second subparagraph,                 meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty establishing the
 and Article 4 ( 4 ) of Directive 75/129/EEC ('), as amended                    European Community ?
 by Directive 92/56/EEC (2 )) cover the case in which the
 collective redundancies occur on the same day as the
 employer filed a winding-up petition and terminated the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/51/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 21 July 2005
   in Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/51/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 217/41)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.- M. Rouchaud-Joët) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 October 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case C-46/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vantaan Käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 1 February 2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab

text:
4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/27
account of the substitutive nature of certain food and drink               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
products (such as, in particular, breakfast cereals enriched with          Stuttgart by order of that Court of 8 February 2002 in the
vitamin D).                                                                case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg against
                                                                                Elisabeth Huttenlocher
                                                                                (Case C-43/02)
(1) Council Directive 89/398 on the approximation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
    nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27, as amended).                                           (2002/C 109/45)
(2) Council Directive 89/107/EEC on the approximation of the laws
    of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for
    use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (OJ 1989
    L 40, p. 27, as amended).                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                           (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 11 February 2002, received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 15 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg
                                                                           against Elisabeth Huttenlocher on the following question:
                                                                           Is the second part of Article 2 of Directive 85/577/EEC(1) to
                                                                           be interpreted as meaning that a close dependant (in this case
                                                                           an unmarried partner) is also acting ‘in the name or on behalf
                                                                           of a trader’ where that person as a consumer takes out a loan
                                                                           with a trader, the trader makes the loan subject to a security
                                                                           (assumption of joint liability), makes the requisite form
                                                                           available to that person and the borrower presents the form
                                                                           for signature to his close dependant in the residence which
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ålands För-                      they share?
valtningsdomstol by judgment of that Court of 5 February
2002 in the proceedings, brought by Diana Elisabeth
                              Lindman                                      (1) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985, p. 31.
                           (Case C-42/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vantaan Kärä-
                          (2002/C 109/44)                                  jäoikeus by order of that Court of 1 February 2002 in the
                                                                             case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
                                                                                (Case C-46/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Ålands För-
valtningsdomstol (Administrative Court, Åland, Finland) of
5 February 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 February             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceeding, brought by               European Communities by order of the Vantaan Käräjäoikeus
Diana Elisabeth Lindman on the following question:                         (District Court, Vantaa) of 1 February 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 18 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
Does Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European                    on the following questions:
Communities preclude a Member State from applying rules
under which lottery winnings from lotteries held in other                  1)    May the requirement in Article 7(1) of the directive (1) for
Member States are included in the taxable income of the                          a link between the investment and the making of the
winner on assessment to income tax, whereas lottery winnings                     database be interpreted in the sense that the ‘obtaining’
from lotteries held in the Member State in question are exempt                   referred to in Article 7(1) and the investment directed at
from tax.                                                                        it refers, in the present case, to investment which is
                                                                                directed at the determination of the dates of the matches
                                                                                and the match pairings themselves and, when the criteria
                                                                                for granting protection are appraised, does the drawing
                                                                                up of the fixture list include investment which is not
                                                                                relevant?
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
2)    Is the object of the directive to provide protection in such        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
      a way that persons other than the authors of the fixture            (Belgium) Section d’administration, by judgment of 8 Feb-
      list may not, without authorisation, use the data in that           ruary 2002 in the case of Commune de Braine-le-Château
      fixture list for betting or other commercial purposes?              against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
                                                                               Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt
3)    For the purposes of the directive, does the use by Veikkaus
      relate to a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
      quantitatively, of the database, having regard to the fact
                                                                                (Case C-53/02)
      that, of the data in the fixture list, on each occasion only
      data necessary for one week is used in the weekly pools
      coupons, and the fact that the data relating to the matches
      is obtained and verified from sources other than the
      maker of the database continuously throughout the                                            (2002/C 109/48)
      season?
(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
    of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77,
    p. 20).
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
                                                                          (Council of State), Belgium (Administrative Section) of 8 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 February 2002,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Commune de Braine-le-
                                                                          Château against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
                                                                          Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt, on the
                                                                          following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-                      1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
Holsteinen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that                              Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
Court of 31 January 2002 in the administrative-law case                         on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and 3. Albertus Snoek                         18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
             against Federal Republic of Germany                                management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
                                                                                disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
                                                                                which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
                           (Case C-47/02)                                       a geographical map the precise locations of the planned
                                                                                waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria
                                                                                which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent
                          (2002/C 109/47)                                       authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9
                                                                                of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation
                                                                                is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holsteinen                 2.    Do Articles 4,5 and 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court, Schles-                    by Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction
wig-Holstein) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court                         with Article 9 of Directive 75/442, preclude a Member
Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the                   State which has not adopted within the period prescribed
administrative-law case of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and                   one or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable
3. Albertus Snoek against Federal Republic of Germany on the                    disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
following question:                                                             permits to operate waste disposal installations, such as
                                                                                landfills?
Are provisions of national law which require the nationality of
the flag State — in this instance German nationality — for the
exercise of the activity of master (captain) of a vessel used in
small-scale maritime shipping and flying the flag of that                 (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Member State compatible with Article 39 of the Treaty                     (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
establishing the European Community?


               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/1

         The new Members of the Court take the oath
   (2006/C 326/01)
   Mr Bonichot, Ms Lindh and Mr von Danwitz, appointed Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decisions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 6 April 2006 (1) and 6 July 2006 (2), for the period from 7 October 2006 to 6 October 2012, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2006.
   Mr Bot, Mr Mazák and Ms Trstenjak, appointed Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 6 April 2006 (1), for the period from 7 October 2006 to 6 October 2012, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 104, 13.4.2006, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 215, 5.8.2006, p. 30.


title: Case C-80/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Mahagében Kft v Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Mahagében Kft v Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-80/11)
   2011/C 179/10
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Biróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mahagében Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who fulfils the material conditions for the right to deduct VAT in accordance with the provisions of that Directive may be deprived of his right to deduct by national legislation or practice that prohibits deductions in respect of VAT paid when a product is bought, where the invoice is the only valid document that confirms that the product was sold, and the taxable person is not in possession of any document from the issuer of the invoice which certifies that it was in possession of the product, and could have supplied it or satisfied its obligations as regards declaration? May a Member State require the recipient of the invoice to be in possession of a document proving that it is in possession of the product, or that the product was supplied or delivered to it, to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion under Article 273 of the Directive?

               2.

               Is the concept of due diligence set out in Paragraph 44(5) of the Hungarian Law on VAT compatible with the principles of neutrality and proportionality already upheld several times by the European Court of Justice in connection with the application of the Directive if, in applying that concept, the tax authority and established case-law require the recipient of the invoice to ascertain whether the issuer of the invoice is a taxable person, whether it has entered goods purchased in its records and is in possession of the purchase invoice, and whether it has satisfied its obligations as to declaration and payment of VAT ?

               3.

               Must Articles 167 and 178(a) of the Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation or practice that requires a taxable person receiving an invoice to verify compliance with the law by the company issuing the invoice in order for the former to assert his right to deduct?

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


title: Case C-347/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — ASM Brescia SpA v Comune di Rodengo Saiano (Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Concession for a public gas-distribution service — Directive 2003/55 — Early cessation at the end of a transitional period — Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — ASM Brescia SpA v Comune di Rodengo Saiano
   (Case C-347/06) (1)

   (Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Concession for a public gas-distribution service - Directive 2003/55 - Early cessation at the end of a transitional period - Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)
   (2008/C 223/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ASM Brescia SpA

      Defendant: Comune di Rodengo Saiano

      Intervener: Anigas — Associazione Nazionale Industriali del Gas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49 and 86(1) EC and of Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) — Automatic extension of concessions for the operation of the public gas-distribution service
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from providing for the extension, on conditions which it lays down, of the length of the transitional period at the end of which the early cessation of a concession for the distribution of natural gas such as that in question in those proceedings must occur. In those circumstances, it must also be held that neither Article 10 EC nor the principle of proportionality precludes such legislation.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from providing for the extension, on conditions which it lays down, of the length of the transitional period at the end of which the early cessation of a concession for the distribution of natural gas such as that in question in those proceedings must occur, provided that such an extension can be regarded as being necessary to enable the contracting parties to untie their contractual relations on acceptable terms both from the point of view of the requirements of the public service and from the economic point of view.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case T-539/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council
   (Case T-539/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment))
   (2016/C 016/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 65), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as they concern North Drilling Co.;

               2.

               Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2014/222 and Article 1 of Implementing Regulation No 397/2014 to be maintained in respect of North Drilling until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of that appeal;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-324/13: Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Endoceutics/OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/32

         Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Endoceutics/OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)
   (Case T-324/13)
   2013/C 252/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 15 April 2013, in Case R 1021/2012-4;

               —

               Reject the opposition of the other party and allow registration of the Community trade mark applied for, namely the application for the mark FEMIVIA under application No. 9 386 343;

               —

               Order the other party to pay the applicant’s costs on the appeal and regarding the proceedings before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FEMIVIA’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9 386 343

      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 of the word mark ‘FEMIBION’, for goods in class 5 and International registration with effect in the European Union for the figurative mark in black and white ‘femibion’ for goods of classes 5 29 and 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

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


title: Judgment of the Court 26 February 2002 in Case C-23/00 P: Council of the European Union v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (Appeal — Admissibility — Application to set aside a judgment of the Court of First Instance to the extent to which that Court declared that there was no need to rule on an objection of inadmissibility raised against an application dismissed by it as unfounded)

text:
C 109/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.5.2002
European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), as amended by                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Commission Decision No 98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 (OJ
1998 L 165, p. 20), and Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991                                              26 February 2002
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of
24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,              in Case C-23/00 P: Council of the European Union v
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                              (Appeal — Admissibility — Application to set aside a
                                                                              judgment of the Court of First Instance to the extent to
                                                                              which that Court declared that there was no need to rule on
1.   It follows from the system established by Council Regulation
                                                                              an objection of inadmissibility raised against an application
     (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
                                                                                dismissed by it as unfounded)
     control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
     European Community, as amended by Commission Decision
     98/368/EC of 18 May 1998,
                                                                                (2002/C 109/09)
     —      that the competent authority of dispatch, within the
            meaning of Article 2(c) thereof, is competent to verify
            whether a proposed shipment classified in the notification                          (Language of the case: English)
            as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ does in fact correspond
            to that classification, ssssand
     —      that, if that classification is incorrect, the authority must
            oppose the shipment by raising an objection founded on            In Case C-23/00 P, Council of the European Union (agents:
            that misclassification within the period prescribed by            M. Sims-Robertson and I. Dı́ez Parra): Appeal against the
            Article 7(2) of the Regulation.                                   judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                              Communities (Second Chamber) of 1 December 1999 in
                                                                              Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council
                                                                              and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427, seeking to have that
2.   The deposit of waste in a disused mine does not necessarily              judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the proceedings
     constitute a disposal operation for the purposes of D 12 of              being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH, C.H. Boehrin-
     Annex II A to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975               ger Sohn, established in Ingelheim am Rhein (Germany),
     on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard), Commission of
     18 March 1991 and Commission Decision 96/350/EC of                       the European Communities (agent: X. Lewis), Fédération
     24 May 1996.                                                             européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels
                                                                              (Belgium), (agent: A. Vandencasteele), Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
                                                                              rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in La Haye
     The deposit must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to
                                                                              (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret) and
     determine whether the operation is a disposal or a recovery
                                                                              United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent:
     operation within the meaning of that Directive.
                                                                              G. Amodeo, assisted by D. Lloyd Jones, QC), the Court,
                                                                              composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
                                                                              F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
     Such a deposit constitutes a recovery if its principal objective is
                                                                              Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
     that the waste serve a useful purpose in replacing other materials
     which would have had to be used for that purpose.                        R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
                                                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                              on 26 February 2002, in which it:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                     1.   Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.   Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs
                                                                                incurred by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
                                                                                C.H. Boehringer Sohn;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/7
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             1.    Sets aside points 2 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment
      Ireland, the Commission of the European Communities, the                  of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined
      Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the                Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council and
      Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) to bear            Commission;
      their own costs.
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Boehringer
                                                                                Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.                                                       against Commission Regulation No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996
                                                                                amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90
                                                                                laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
                                                                                maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
                                                                                foodstuffs of animal origin;
                                                                          3.    Orders Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.
                                                                                Boehringer Sohn, both in the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-152/96 and in those before the Court
                                                                                of Justice, to bear their own costs and to pay the whole of the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;
                                                                          4.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear the costs
                        26 February 2002                                        which it has incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-152/96;
in Case C-32/00 P: Commission of the European Com-                        5.    Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
munities v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)                         and the Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                to bear the costs which they have incurred both in the
                                                                                proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/96
(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Partial annul-                        and in those before the Court of Justice.
ment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 in so far
as, in fixing the maximum residue limits for clenbuterol
chlorhydrate, it further specifies the permissible therapeutic            (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
indications for that substance — Possibility for the Com-
mission, in fixing the maximum residue limits of veterinary
medicinal products, to take into account Directive 96/22/EC
 concerning the prohibition on the use of certain substances)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (2002/C 109/10)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                27 February 2002
                                                                          in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                          the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v
In Case C-32/00 P, Commission of the European Communities                                  Universal Ogden Services Ltd (1)
(agent: X. Lewis): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)               (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place
of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96                  of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
Boehringer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427,                   employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other                out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an
parties to the proceedings being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetme-             installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to
dica GmbH, C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim                 a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another
am Rheim (Germany) (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard),                                        Contracting State)
Council of the European Union, Fédération européenne de la
Santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium)                                             (2002/C 109/11)
(agents: A. Vandencasteele and D. Brinckman), Stichting
Kwaliteistsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
La Haye (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret)
and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),                                   in the European Court Reports)
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment               In Case C-37/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
on 26 February 2002, in which it:                                         3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of


title: Case C-308/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Kozuba Premium Selection sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw, v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Kozuba Premium Selection sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw, v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
   (Case C-308/16)
   (2016/C 335/43)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Kozuba Premium Selection sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

      Question referred

   Must Article 135(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision (point 10 of Article 43(1) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług [Law on the tax on goods and services] of 11 March 2004 [Dz. U. No 54, item 535, as amended; ‘the Law on VAT’]) under which the supply of buildings, civil engineering works or parts thereof is exempt from VAT save where:

               (a)

               the supply is made within the framework of the first occupation or prior to the first occupation,

               (b)

               the period between the first occupation and the supply of the building, civil engineering works or parts thereof was shorter than 2 years, insofar as point 14 of Article 2 of the Law on VAT defines first occupation as release for use of buildings, civil engineering works or parts thereof, in performance of taxable activities, to the first customer or user, following their:

                           (a)

                           erection or

                           (b)

                           upgrade, if the expenditure incurred for the upgrade, as defined in the regulations on income tax, constituted at least 30 % of the initial value?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-14/15: Action brought on 14 January 2015  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/7

         Action brought on 14 January 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-14/15)
   (2015/C 096/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/731/EU of 9 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Malta (1), Council Decision 2014/743/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Cyprus (2), and Council Decision 2014/744/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Estonia (3);

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Parliament invokes two pleas in law alleging infringement of the Treaties, first, and infringement of an essential procedural requirement, secondly, in support of its action for annulment.
   In the first place, the Parliament considers that the Council used an inappropriate legal basis in order to adopt the contested decisions.
   In the second place, the Parliament complains that the Council used a decision-making procedure which is legally incorrect.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 302, p. 56.

      (2)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 100.

      (3)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 102.


title: Action brought on 8 August 1996 by Service pour le groupement d'acquisitions (SGA) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-123/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 318 / 13
    on the market and administration of BST ('the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    moratorium') and breach of the principle of
     proportionality .                                                On 1 December 1995 the Commission adopted Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2781 /95 on the transport for the free supply to
    The latest renewal of the moratorium on BST expressly             Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan of rye
     permits Member States to 'carry out limited practical            flour .
     tests on the use of bovine somatotrophin'. Furthermore,
     the moratorium nowhere prohibits the placing on the              The transport of one of the lots was awarded to the
     market of products obtained from tested animals . It is          applicant. Annexed to the award was a schedule of 10 points
     solely concerned with BST and not with the sale of               containing extracts from the agreement between the
     foodstuffs obtained from treated animals . It appears de         European Community and the Georgian authorities . After
     facto disproportionate to inhibit the ability of academic        delivery the Commission sent to the applicant a statement of
     institutions to obtain free access, for the purpose of           account which concerned, inter alia, costs of dispatch to be
     clinical trials, to a product whose use in animals is            paid to the Georgian authorities . The applicant objects that
     recognized scientifically as harmless to humans, and to          no reference is made anywhere to the dispatch rate, not even
     require healthy animals to be sacrificed in such a               in the award and in the memorandum concerning the
     situation .                                                      abovementioned agreement. The applicant therefore
                                                                      considers that the costs of dispatch do not have to be paid to
— Infringement of the Final Act embodying the results                 the Georgian authorities and protests against a number of
     of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade                       decisions in which those costs are stated to be for its
     Negotiations .                                                   account .
     In the applicant's view, the Commission's decision
     refusing to proceed with the inclusion of BST in Annex II
     to the Regulation may seriously affect non-EC producers
     who request an authorization to place on the market
     foodstuffs from animals treated with BST.
                                                                      Action brought on 8 August 1996 by Service pour le
                                                                      groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-123 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318 /27 )
Action brought on 2 August 1996 by Mutual Aid
Administration Services NV against the Commission of the                              (Language of the case: French)
                     European Communities
                        ( Case T-121 /96 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                          ( 96/C 318/26 )                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1 996 by
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Service pour le groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ),
                                                                      established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                      Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Beatrix de Bourbon .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1 996 by
Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of Antwerp
( Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar,         The applicant claims that the Court should :
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of R. Faltz, 6 rue Heinrich Heine .                                   — annul the Commission 's decision notified to SGA on
                                                                          5 Tune 1996 not to investigate the complaint lodged on
                                                                          4 July 1994 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare, in accordance with Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
— annul the contested decision(s ), a copy of which is                    that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
     included in the documents annexed to the application,
                                                                          liability and caused SGA damage which must be made
     and consequently hold that the applicant is not obliged
                                                                          good, and, as a consequence, award SGA the sum of
     to pay the costs of dispatch to the Georgian
                                                                           ECU 360 000 by way of compensation,
     authorities,
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     proceed to repay to the applicant the sum of US$
     21 967,19 together with interest, calculated at the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     current statutory rate in Belgium of 8 % per annum,
      since 30 July 1996 ,                                             SGA operates as an intermediary in the distribution of all
                                                                       makes of automobiles, undertaking parallel imports solely
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              as agent for the final consumer, in accordance with
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/ 14          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
Article 3(11 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , as referred to       effects on SGA's supplies, to the point where the company's
in Regulation ( EC ) No 1475/95 .                                     future is in jeopardy and it may very soon be forced to cease
                                                                      operations .
The company seeks annulment of the Commission 's
decision of 5 June 1996 not to investigate its complaint
criticizing in particular the directions given and the pressure
applied by the Peugeot ( PSA ) group to the Peugeot and
Citroen dealers in other Member States, in order to prevent
them from supplying vehicles to agents and to partition the           Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Interporc Im- und
market, contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome .                Export GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-124/96 )
SGA maintains, first, that by refusing to act on its complaint,
the Commission has committed a manifest error of
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/28 )
assessment regarding the probative value of the evidence
produced . Furthermore, in earlier correspondence with                                (Language of the case: German)
SGA, the Commission had already acknowledged the
probative value of some of the documents furnished by the             An action against the Commission of the European
company .                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 9 August 1 996 by
                                                                      Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, Hamburg, represented by
According to SGA, the Commission also committed a                     Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address
manifest error of assessment with respect both to the alleged         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
lack of Community interest and to its own right to refuse to          of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8 rue Mathias Hardt .
call a halt to such a serious infringement as the partitioning
of the market. According to settled case-law, agreements
and practices designed to partition the market constitute             The applicant claims that the Court should :
infringements which are regarded as particularly serious .
Clauses, even if not in writing, for the elimination of exports       — annul the contested decision,
are equally unlawful , since their purpose is to prevent the
integration of the internal market, which is one of the               — declare that the Commission is not entitled to refuse
Treaty's fundamental objectives . It follows that, in the case            access to the documents specified in the letter of
of practices such as those described in the complaint, the                23 February 1996 from the applicant's representatives
Commission should have taken action .                                     to the Director General of DG VI,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
SGA also argues that the Commission committed a manifest
error regarding its identification of the infringement's centre
of gravity and concerning the competence of the French                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
courts or authorities . According to the Commission , this
dispute's centre of gravity is in France, whereas it is really to     The applicant, one of the applicants in Case T-50/96 ,
be found in the Member States from which the re-export of             contests the Commission 's refusal to send it certain
vehicles by dealers in those States ought to respond to               documents concerning the decision of the Commission of
demand on the part of French consumers or agents; the                 26 January 1996 ('Hilton beef'), with which that action is
French manufacturer is endeavouring through its local                 concerned . The documents in question are the same as those
dealers to prevent those re-exports . The Commission is               in relation to which application has already been made in
therefore the authority competent to conduct an                       that other action for an order for their production by way of
investigation.                                                        a measure of organization of procedure .
                                                                      In the applicant's view, that refusal infringes both the code
SGA further argues that the Commission committed a                    of conduct for public access to documents of the Council
manifest error of assessment by refusing to adopt the interim         and of the Commission and Commission Decision 84/90/EC
measures sought in the complaint, the purpose of which was            of 8 February 1994 on public access to its documents . More
purely defensive and precautionary .                                  specifically, the defendant is not entitled, on the pretext of
                                                                      being required to apply a strict interpretation to the
                                                                      applicable provisions, to reduce the scope of the right to
As regards the action for damages , SGA points out that               access to its own documents to such an extent that that
when confronted with a file reporting, with supporting                fundamental right is rendered nugatory .
evidence, serious infringements whose damaging
consequences for the market, consumers and agents were                In the present case, in which the Commission is relying on its
undeniable, the Commission was obliged under Article 3 of             obligation to protect the public interest ( administration of
the Treaty and Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17 to               justice ), the defendant, as a public administrative authority
take measures to root out the cause of the damage . The               which is primarily required to act in the general interest,
Commission's refusal to act has had particularly detrimental          cannot apply a broad interpretation to that concept, since


title: Case T-15/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
   (Case T-15/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 113/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC CASH as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006 4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;

               3.

               Orders Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;

               4.

               Orders OHIM to pay the essential costs incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-106/99: Action brought on 26 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 160/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
6. In the circumstances of this case, is the National Authority        Pleas in law and main arguments
     obliged to pay the export refunds which the undertaking
     would have applied for at the time of export and would
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, a
     have been payable if the sugar described as C Sugar and
                                                                       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     exported under C Sugar Licences had been designated as A
                                                                       each Member State to which it is addressed.
     and B quota sugar, on the grounds that:
     (a) the National Authority can retrospectively accept an          Although the prescribed time-limit expired on 31 December
          export declaration under Article 3 of Commission             1996, the Portuguese Republic has still not submitted to the
          Regulation (EEC) No. 3665/87 of 27 November 1987             Commission the report on the experience gained in the light
          laying down common detailed rules for the application        of Directive 90/313/EEC, as required by Article 8 thereof.
          of the system of export refunds on agricultural prod-
          ucts (5) and the circumstances of the present case
          constitute a reason of force majeure entitling it to         (1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
          extend the period for the furnishing of proof under
          Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
          No 3665/87?
          And/or on the grounds that:
     (b) a refusal to pay such export refunds would constitute
          a breach of the principles of Legitimate Expectations        Appeal brought on 30 March 1999 by Lech-Stahlwerke
          and/or Legal Certainty and/or Proportionality and/or         GmbH against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
          Proper Use of Powers?                                        by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue
( 1) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                         Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH
( 2) OJ L 258, 11.9.1981, p. 16.                                       supported by the Federal Republic of Germany against
( 3) OJ L 144, 28.6.1995, p. 14.                                       the Commission of the European Communities in Cases
( 4) OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 181.                                      T-2/96 and T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of
( 5) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.                                                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-111/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/22)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
Action brought on 26 March 1999 by the Commission                      by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                               Republic                                T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue Maxhütte
                                                                       Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH supported by
                                                                       the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of
                         (Case C-106/99)                               the European Communities in Joined Cases T-2/96 and
                                                                       T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                         (1999/C 160/21)                               and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 1999 by
                                                                       Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen-Herbertshofen, Germany,
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before           represented by Rainer Bierwagen of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke &
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March           Crosby, Rond Point Schuman 9, Bte 9, B-1040 Brussels.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          The appellant claims that the Court should:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                                                       — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities of 21 January 1999 in Joined
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 Neue Maxhütte
                                                                           Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v. Com-
— declare that, by failing to submit to the Commission within              mission of the European Communities(1) to the extent that
     the prescribed period the report provided for by Article 8            it relates to the appellant,
     of Council Decision 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
     freedom of access to information on the environment (1),          — itself give final judgment in the case and declare null and
     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          void, to the extent it relates to the appellant, Commission
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty             Decision 95/422/ECSC of 4 April 1995 concerning State
     and Article 8 of Directive 90/313/EEC,                                aid that the Freistaat Bayern intends to grant to the ECSC
                                                                           steel undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                          Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (OJ L 253, 21.10.1995, p. 22),


title: Case C-552/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community figurative mark TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT — Earlier word mark KINDER — Invalidity proceedings — Article 52(1)(a) — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Assessment of the similarity of the signs — Family of marks)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck
   (Case C-552/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community figurative mark TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT - Earlier word mark KINDER - Invalidity proceedings - Article 52(1)(a) - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Assessment of the similarity of the signs - Family of marks)
   2011/C 152/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ferrero SpA (represented by: C. Gielen, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2009 in Case T-140/08 Ferrero SpA v OHIM — Tirol Milch, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2008 in Case R 682/2007-2 annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the word mark ‘TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT’ invalid for goods in Class 29 in invalidity proceedings brought by the appellant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ferrero SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2004 in Case T-396/02: August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a sweet — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 November 2004
   in Case T-396/02: August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a sweet - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 19/47)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-396/02: August Storck KG, established in Berlin, represented by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher, A. Heise and I. Rohr, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Müller and G. Schneider) – action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2002 (Case R 187/2001-4), refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark comprised of the shape of a light-brown sweet – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case C-19/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone, Société Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Société Evian eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME) (Approximation of laws — Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — Right of an agent entrusted with a specific geographical area to a commission — Transactions concluded without any action on the part of the principal)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone, Société Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Société Evian eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)
   (Case C-19/07) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Right of an agent entrusted with a specific geographical area to a commission - Transactions concluded without any action on the part of the principal)
   (2008/C 64/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paul Chevassus-Marche

      Defendants: Groupe Danone, Société Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Société Evian eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Termination of the agency contract — Commission owed to a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area or group of persons — Whether there is a right to that commission in the absence of any control, direct or indirect, by the principal over transactions between a third party and a customer belonging to the geographical area entrusted to the agent
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area does not have the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-526/03: Order of the President of the Court of  14 November 2005  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 November 2005 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-526/03) (1)

   (2006/C 143/55)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.03.2004.


title: Case C-538/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A.

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A.
   (Case C-538/15)
   (2015/C 429/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesc de Bolós Pi

      Defendant: Urbaser, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 10 and Article 4(3) TEU, compatible with rules laid down in the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003, which provides that their remuneration is subject to a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % and when it is impossible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from those minima even in exceptional circumstances?

               2)

               For the purpose of applying the abovementioned statutory scale without applying the minimum levels laid down therein: may the fact that the amount of fees payable under the scale is disproportionate to the work actually done be regarded as exceptional circumstances?

               3)

               Is Article 56 TFEU compatible with Royal Decree 1373/2006?

               4)

               Does Royal Decree 1373/2006 meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality referred to in Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC? (1)

               5)

               Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights include the right to defend oneself properly in a situation in which the figure at which the fees of a procurador are set is disproportionately high and does not correspond to the work actually carried out?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case C-357/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 — Electrabel SA and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid granted by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generators — Power purchase agreements concluded between a public undertaking and certain electricity generators — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Meaning of ‘party’ capable of bringing an appeal before the Court — Accession of Hungary to the European Union — Date relevant to the assessment of the existence of aid — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Methodology for calculating the amount of aid)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 — Electrabel SA and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission
   (Case C-357/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generators - Power purchase agreements concluded between a public undertaking and certain electricity generators - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Meaning of ‘party’ capable of bringing an appeal before the Court - Accession of Hungary to the European Union - Date relevant to the assessment of the existence of aid - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Methodology for calculating the amount of aid))
   (2015/C 381/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Electrabel SA and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, F.-H. Boret and A.-C. Guyon, avocats, and by P. Turner QC)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3)

               Orders Electrabel SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-373/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Prešov Regional Court) lodged on 3 August 2012 — G.I.C. Cash, a.s. v Marián Gunčaga

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Prešov Regional Court) lodged on 3 August 2012 — G.I.C. Cash, a.s. v Marián Gunčaga
   (Case C-373/12)
   2012/C 355/13
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: G.I.C. Cash, a.s.

      Defendant: Marián Gunčaga

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) (‘the Charter’), in conjunction with Article 38 thereof, together with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court in a dispute on a consumer contract is assessing whether a contract term is unacceptable and a court of another Member State has already manifestly held, in comparable factual circumstances, that a contract term with a similar or identical content is unacceptable, the consumer has the right that the court, for the purposes of the assessment of whether the contract term at issue is unacceptable, takes into account that judgment of the court of the other Member State?

               2.

               Where the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the court infringe the fundamental right of the consumer under Article 47 of the Charter in conjunction with Article 38 thereof where it does not take into account the manifest judgment of the court of the other Member State on the unacceptability of a contract term with a similar or identical content?

      (1)  OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).