title: Case C-435/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — C (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Substantive and temporal scope — Definition of civil matters — Decision concerning the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home — Public law measures for child protection)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — C
   (Case C-435/06) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Substantive and temporal scope - Definition of ‘civil matters’ - Decision concerning the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home - Public law measures for child protection)
   (2008/C 22/20)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(b) and (2)(d) and Article 64 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Material scope — Recognition and enforcement of an administrative decision, confirmed by a judicial decision, concerning the placement of children by the authorities outside the family home — Public law measures for protection of children
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004, is to be interpreted to the effect that a single decision ordering a child to be taken into care and placed outside his original home in a foster family is covered by the term ‘civil matters’ for the purposes of that provision, where that decision was adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection.

               2.

               Regulation No 2201/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2116/2004, is to be interpreted as meaning that harmonised national legislation on the recognition and enforcement of administrative decisions on the taking into care and placement of persons, adopted in the context of Nordic Cooperation, may not be applied to a decision to take a child into care that falls within the scope of that regulation.

               3.

               Subject to the factual assessment which is a matter for the national court alone, Regulation No 2201/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2116/2004, is to be interpreted as applying ratione temporis in a case such as that in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Time-limits — Point when time starts to run — Publication — Internet site)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2005
   in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Admissibility - Time-limits - Point when time starts to run - Publication - Internet site)
   (2005/C 229/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-98/04: Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Cerignola (Italy), Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA), established in Portici (Italy), Poli Sud Srl, established in Lamezia Terme (Italy), Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C., established in Castegnero (Italy), Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Faudi), established in Marcellina (Italy), Cofra Srl, established in Barletta (Italy), Lavorazione cuoio e pelli Bieffe Srl, established in San Miniato (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agent: V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market a scheme for aid for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State Aid N 715/99 –Italy (SG (2000) D/105754) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-363/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio (Court of Auditors) (Greece) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Commissioner of the Court of Auditors at the Ministry of Culture and Tourism v Audit Service of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and Konstantinos Antonopoulos

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio (Court of Auditors) (Greece) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Commissioner of the Court of Auditors at the Ministry of Culture and Tourism v Audit Service of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and Konstantinos Antonopoulos
   (Case C-363/11)
   2011/C 269/77
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Elegktiko Sinedrio (Court of Auditors)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioner of the Court of Auditors at the Ministry of Culture and Tourism

      Defendant: Audit Service of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and Konstantinos Antonopoulos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does payment or non-payment of remuneration to a worker during leave of absence from work on trade union business constitute a working condition or employment condition under European Union law (‘EU law’) and, in particular, do provisions of law allowing unpaid leave for union business to be granted to workers with a fixed-term employment relationship in the public sector who do not hold an established post and who are officials of a trade union organisation introduce a ‘working condition’ within the meaning of Article 137(1)(b) EC and an ‘employment condition’ in accordance with Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement [Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] or does this question come within the areas of pay and the right of association to which EU law does not apply?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is a worker with a private-law employment relationship of indefinite duration with the civil service who holds an established post and is employed on the same work as a worker with a private-law fixed-term employment relationship who does not hold an established post ‘comparable’ to that worker within the meaning of Clauses 3(2) and 4(1), of the framework agreement or does the fact that the national Constitution (Article 103) and its implementing laws provide for a special employment regime for such workers (terms of employment and specific safeguards in accordance with Article 103(3) of the Constitution) suffice to classify them as not ‘comparable’ to workers with a private-law fixed-term employment relationship who do not hold an established post?

               3.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           If the effect of a combination of national legislative provisions is that public sector employees with an employment relationship of indefinite duration who hold an established post and who are officials of a second-level trade union organisation receive paid leave (up to nine days a month) for trade union business, while workers in the same service with a fixed-term employment relationship who do not hold an established post but who do have the same trade union status receive unpaid leave of the same duration for trade union business, does the distinction in question constitute less favourable treatment of the second category of workers within the meaning of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement and

                           (b)

                           Do the fixed term of the employment relationship of the second category of workers and the fact that that category is distinct in terms of the employment regime in general (terms of recruitment, promotion and termination of the employment relationship) constitute objective grounds that might justify that discrimination?

               4.

               Does the distinction at issue between trade union officials who are workers with a contract of indefinite duration and who hold an established position in the civil service and fixed-term workers with the same trade union status who do not hold an established post in the same service infringe the principle of non-discrimination in the pursuit of trade union rights in accordance with Articles 12, 20, 21 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or can that distinction be justified on the grounds that the two categories of workers have a different employment status?


title: Case C-347/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 17 August 2006 — ASM Brescia S.p.A. v Comune di Rodengo Saiano

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 17 August 2006 — ASM Brescia S.p.A. v Comune di Rodengo Saiano
   (Case C-347/06)
   (2006/C 281/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale di Brescia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ASM Brescia S.p.A.

      Defendant: Comune di Rodengo Saiano
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Is an automatic and generalised extension till 31 December 2007 of current concessions for the distribution of natural gas, originally granted without any previous tender procedure, contrary to Articles 43, 49 and 86(1) of the Treaty, and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency?

               (2)

               Are subsequent automatic extensions till 31 December 2009 of current concessions for the distribution of natural gas, originally granted without any previous tender procedure, contrary to Articles 43, 49 and 86(1) of the Treaty, and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency in the following cases:

                           (a)

                           when the holder of the concession has carried out a merger enabling it to serve a number of customers twice as great as the larger of the companies was able to;

                           (b)

                           when the holder of the concession has acquired more than 100 000 final users, or it supplies more than 100 million cubic metres of gas a year or its field of operations is at least as great as the whole territory of the province;

                           (c)

                           when at least 40 % of the concession-holder's share capital has been transferred to private shareholders?

               (3)

               Is the extension of current concessions for the distribution of natural gas, both in the case described in the first question and in the cases described in the second, contrary to the fourth, eighth, tenth and eighteenth recitals in the preamble to Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of 26 June 2003, and to Article 23(1) thereof, to Article 10 of the Treaty and to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, having particular regard to:

                           (a)

                           the fact that the States are obliged to attain the objective of liberalising the market in natural gas before the dead-line of 1 July 2007;

                           (b)

                           the fact that the States are prohibited from adopting or maintaining in force domestic legislation incompatible with the liberalisation of the market in natural gas;

                           (c)

                           the fact that the States are obliged to set a reasonable term for the duration of the transitional period and subject it to objective requirements?

      (1)  OJ L 176, p. 57.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-238/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 252/21
the 0stre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was                              member comparable to children of the family, to be
received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1997, for a                               regarded as accommodation referred to in Article
preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet                                 2 ( l)(b)?
( Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs) v. Aktieselskabet
Forsikringsselskabet Codan, a limited-liability insurance                  2.2 . Are the training of the student and his parents, the
company, on the following question:                                                 selecting of the host family and the school in the host
                                                                                country, and the preparation of documentation
Must Article 12 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC                         relating to the country to be regarded as other tourist
of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of                         services referred to in Article 2 ( 1 ) ( c)?
capital H be construed as authorizing duty to be charged
on the transfer of shares, irrespective of whether the                     ( 1 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 59 .
company which issued those shares is admitted to trade on
a Stock Exchange and irrespective of whether the share
transfer is effected through the Stock Exchange or directly
between the transferor and the acquiring party ?
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
                                                                           Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-238/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/43
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 June 1997 in                  on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       the case of AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry                   Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
                         ( Case C-237/97 )                                 Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal
                           ( 97/C 252/42 )                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 June
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June                  1 . declare that, by not adjusting the Agreement between
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of AFS                                 Spain and Tunisia (') so as to give access to cargo
 Intercultural Programs Finland ry on the following                                shares by Community nationals or by not
 questions:                                                                        communicating such adjustments, the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3
 1.     Does a student exchange journey of a duration of                           and 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 ( 2), and
        about six months or a year, the purpose of which is
        not travel or tourism but attending school in a                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
        foreign country and getting to know its people and
        culture by living in a local family as a family member              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        without payment, fall wholly or partly within
        the scope of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 30                     Under Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86, cargo
        June 1990 on package travel, package holidays                       sharing agreements contained in existing bilateral
        and package tours ( ! )? Are characteristics which                  agreements are to be phased out or adjusted . The
        emphasize the non-commercial nature of the                          provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of the Agreement
        organization of the journey, such as the fact that a                between Spain and Tunisia constitute cargo agreements
        participant has to pay only part of the travel costs                and are thus subject to that requirement. Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
        himself, that the journeys are organized in                         of the Regulation provides for an adjustment period
        cooperation between public-interest associations of                 ending on 1 January 1993 . With reference to Article
        different countries and are largely based on voluntary              4 ( 1 ) ( a ), the Commission notes that Spain did not accede
                                                                            to the United Nations              Code       of Conduct for Liner
        work, and that the journeys are supported by State
        cultural funds, of relevance for whether a student                  Conferences until 3 February 1994 . Regulation ( EEC )
        exchange journey falls within the scope of the                      No 4055/86 does not merely provide that Member States
        Package Travel Directive ?                                          are to request non-member countries to accept adjustment
                                                                            of such agreements: if there is no acceptance or even
  2.    If the student exchange journeys described above fall               formal acknowledgment of receipt of such a request, the
                                                                             agreements may be denounced ( such denouncement is
        within the general scope of the Package Travel
        Directive, an answer is also sought to the following                provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement with Tunisia ).
        questions concerning the detailed interpretation of
        Article 2 of that Directive :                                        (') Agreement on carriage by sea , Boletm Oficial del Estado,
                                                                                1986 , p. 899 .
                                                                             ( 2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
  2.1 . Is long-term accommodation without payment,
        whose essence is living in a family as a family


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 1995 in Case C-144/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Centrale): Ufficio IVA di Trapani v. Italittica SpA (Sixth VAT Directive - Interpretation of Article 10 (2) - Chargeable event - Scope of the derogation granted to the Member States)

text:
9. 12 . 95            L^N                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 333/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       document serving as invoice has not been issued or the
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                price has not been received.
                       of 26 October 1995
in Case C-144/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .
the Commissione Tributaria Centrale ): Ufficio IVA di
                   Trapani v. Italittica SpA (')
 (Sixth VAT Directive — Interpretation ofArticle 10 (2) —
 Chargeable event — Scope of the derogation granted to the
                           Member States)
                            ( 95/C 333/08 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 26 October 1995
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P: Pesquería
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Vasco-Montañesa SA ( Pevasa ) and Compañía Internacional
                                                                       de Pesca y Derivados SA ( Inpesca ) v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (')
In Case C-144/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177            (Fisheries - Community financial aid for the construction of
of the EC Treaty by the Commissione Tributaria Centrale                fishing vessels — Action for annulment — Time-limits —
( Central Tax Court ) for a preliminary - ruling in the                Action for damages — Admissibility — Appeal manifestly
proceedings pending before that court between Ufficio IVA                                          unfounded)
di Trapani and Italittica SpA — on the interpretation of                                          95 /C 333 /09
Article 10 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977
( 77/388/EEC ) on the harmonization of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed
of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.
C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, P. Jann             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
und L. Sevon, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                       published in the European Court Reports)
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
on 26 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                              In Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P : Pesqueria
                                                                       Vasco-Montanesa SA ( Pevasa ), a company incorporated
                                                                       under Spanish law, established in Bermeo ( Spain ),
1 . The third subparagraph of Article 10 (2) of the Sixth              represented by Maria Iciar Angulo Fuertes, of the Biscay
     Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating           Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and
     to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                  Companfa Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA ( Inpesca ),
     tax : uniform basis of assessment allows the Member               a company incorporated under Spanish law, established in
     States to provide that the receipt of the price is the event      Bermeo ( Spain ), represented by Maria Iciar Angulo Fuertes,
     which, for all supplies of services, renders the tax              of the Biscay Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     chargeable.                                                       at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt
                                                                       — appeals against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 28 April
                                                                       1994 in Joined Cases T-452/93 and T-453/93 Pevasa and
2. A Member State which avails itself of the derogation                Inpesca v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-229 , seeking: ( 1 ) to
     provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 10 (2)          have that order set aside; ( 2 ) annulment of the decisions of
     of Directive 77/388/EEC is not required to lay down 'a            the Commission of 18 December 1990 and 8 November
     specified period from the date of the chargeable event '           1991 refusing the appellants the financial aid they had
     within which the invoice or document serving as invoice           sought pursuant to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86
     must be issued even where the price has not yet been              of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve
     received.
                                                                       and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector
                                                                       ( OJ 1986 L 376 , p. 7 ); ( 3 ) an order directing the
                                                                       Commission to take the necessary steps to grant to the
3 . The Member State which avails itself of the derogation             appellants the financial aid requested; and ( 4 ) an order
     in the third subparagraph of Article 10 (2) of Directive          directing the Commission to pay compensation for the
     77/388/EEC is not required to lay down detailed rules             damage caused by its conduct, the other party to the
     for documentation and recording of the completed                  proceedings being the Commission of the European
     service and the payment for it whenever the invoice or            Communities ( Agents : Francisco Jose Santaolalla Gadea


title: Case T-278/04: Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Jabones Pardo, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/23

         Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Jabones Pardo, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-278/04)
   (2004/C 251/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by Jabones Pardo, S.A., established in Madrid, represented by José Enrique Astiz Suárez, of the Madrid Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the findings of the contested decision as regards the similarity of the signs and the goods, ordering that the opposition be admitted and the application refused in respect of goods in classes 3 and 5; and

               —

               annul the decision in order that a new and accurate comparison of the signs and goods which they identify may be carried out, regard being had to the high degree of visual and phonetic similarity between ‘YUPI’ and ‘YUKI’, as well as the fact that many of the goods which they designate are identical or almost identical.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               QUIMI ROMAR S.L.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘YUKI’ — Application No 1. 353.515 for goods in classes 3, 5 and 28.

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The Spanish word mark ‘YUPI’ (No 246.715) for goods in class 3 (all types of perfumery, waxes, essential oils and dentifrices).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld in part in respect of the goods against which it was directed: i.e. ‘soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices’ (class 3) and ‘pharmaceutical and sanitary preparations’ (class 5)

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Upheld the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark, annulled the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition in respect of ‘soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices’ (class 3) and ‘pharmaceutical and sanitary preparations’ (class 5) and rejected the case of the opposing party.

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-373/05 P: Appeal brought on  10 October 2005  by Bart Nijs against the order made on  26 May 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-377/04 between Bart Nijs and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/8

         Appeal brought on 10 October 2005 by Bart Nijs against the order made on 26 May 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-377/04 between Bart Nijs and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   (Case C-373/05 P)
   (2005/C 330/16)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the order made on 26 May 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-377/04 between Bart Nijs and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2005 by Bart Nijs, represented by Fränk Rollinger, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare this appeal admissible in form;

               —

               declare this appeal well-founded on the substance;

               —

               find that the subject-matter of Bart Nijs's complaint of 27 February 2004 is identical to the subject-matter of his application lodged on 16 September 2004 at the Registry of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               declare the application of Bart Nijs admissible;

               —

               consequently, annul the order of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 2005 and refer this case back to the Court of First Instance with a different composition for a hearing.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly found that Bart Nijs's application was inadmissible, while he maintains that the pre-litigation procedure, and more specifically Article 90(2) of the Statute, was complied with.


title: Case C-590/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Idexx Laboratoires Italia srl v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Idexx Laboratoires Italia srl v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-590/13)
   2014/C 24/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Idexx Laboratoires Italia srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 [Ecotrade spa v Agenzia delle Entrate [2008] ECR I-3457] — to the effect that Article 18(1)(d) and Article 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388, (1) as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, preclude a practice whereby declarations are reassessed and value added tax recovered which penalises a failure to comply with, first, the formal requirements laid down by national law in implementation of Article 18(1)(d) and, second, obligations relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, by denying the right to deduct where the reverse charge procedure applies — also applicable in the case of total failure to comply with the obligations laid down by national law where there is, however, no doubt as to the status of a person as a person liable for payment of the tax or that person’s right to deduct?

               2.

               Do the expressions ‘obblighi sostanziali’, ‘substantive requirements’ and ‘exigences de fond’ used by the CJEU in the various language versions of the judgment delivered on 8 May 2008 in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 refer, with regard to situations entailing reverse charge VAT, to the requirement to pay VAT or the requirement of assumption of liability for the tax, or to the existence of substantive conditions which justify the imposition of VAT on the taxable person and govern the right to deduct, which is intended to safeguard the principle of VAT neutrality and of a single European system — for example, the presumption that there is an inherent connection between the goods purchased and the business carried on (‘inerenza’), whether VAT may be charged and whether it is totally deductible?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes– Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1).


title: Case T-93/11: Action brought on 15 February 2011 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/19

         Action brought on 15 February 2011 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission
   (Case T-93/11)
   2011/C 113/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               find that the Commission Decision of 6 December 2010 in procedure GESTDEM 2009/2508 infringes Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and annul it accordingly; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of his application the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission Decision of 6 December 2010 in procedure GESTDEM 2009/2508 refusing to allow full access to several documents relating to the trade negotiations between the EU and India, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 4(1)(a) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001, as the international relations exception is inapplicable in this case because all the documents requested are in the public domain.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43


title: Case C-172/05 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2005 by O. Mancini against the judgment delivered on 3 February 2005 by the Court of First Instance in Case T-137/03 between O. Mancini and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/21

         Appeal brought on 15 April 2005 by O. Mancini against the judgment delivered on 3 February 2005 by the Court of First Instance in Case T-137/03 between O. Mancini and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-172/05 P)
   (2005/C 132/39)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-137/03 between O. Mancini and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 April 2005 by O. Mancini, represented by E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare her appeal admissible and well-founded and

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-137/03 between O. Mancini and the Commission of the European Communities delivered on 3 February 2005.

         The appellant also seeks an order that the Court of Justice should decide the case itself and, upholding the appellant's original action in Case T-137/03, should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 28 June 2002 not to appoint the appellant to the post of medical officer with the ‘Brussels Medical Service’ Unit — DG Admin B8;

               —

               annul the express decision rejecting the appellant's complaint lodged on 29 July 2002 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and rejected by express decision on 23 January 2003 served on the appellant on 27 January 2003;

               —

               annul the appointment of Dr Dolmans to the post of medical officer, which entailed inter alia the rejection of the appellant's application for the vacant post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 assessed on an equitable basis by way of damages for non-material loss and damage to career;

               —

               in any event, order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The grounds of the appeal are, in accordance with Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an infringement of Community law and a breach of procedure before the Court of First Instance which adversely affect the interests of the appellant.


title: Case T-503/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/62

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-503/12)
   2013/C 26/123
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: D. Wyatt, QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister, and C. Murrell, agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2012/500/EU of 6 September 2012 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States, to the extent of four entries in the Annex relating to a 5 % flat rate correction of expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland in Financial Year 2008 (amounting to EUR 277 231,60 and EUR 13 671 558,90) and in Financial Year 2009 (amounting to EUR 270 398,26 and EUR 15 844 193,29) (OJ 2012 L 244, p. 11); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and of fact, and failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to the EU funds, in respect of the risk to such funds posed by expenditure in claim years 2007 and 2008 in particular resulting from errors in determination of eligible area in 2005 affecting the initial allocation of entitlements.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and fact, in that the Commission wrongly concluded that Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (‘DARD’) failed to apply, properly or at all, provisions on sanctions, recoveries of undue payments and intentional non compliance, and that the Commission thus overestimated and/or failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to the EU funds. In particular, the Commission:

                           —

                           wrongly criticised an alleged «systematic» recalculation of payment entitlements by DARD;

                           —

                           wrongly claimed that errors in 2005 could have material affects on the historical element of the entitlement value;

                           —

                           adopted the wrong method of calculation of overpayments;

                           —

                           adopted the wrong approach to penalties, in particular by:

                                       —

                                       adopting the wrong method of calculating penalties; and

                                       —

                                       wrongly claiming that a penalty should be imposed for each year in cases where a penalty was applicable in 2005 but not in subsequent claim years in this case in 2007 and 2008 where over-payment resulted from the same error as that penalised in 2005;

                           —

                           adopted the wrong approach to intentional non-compliance.


title: Case T-623/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2017 — Lidl Siftung v EUIPO (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT! — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2017 — Lidl Siftung v EUIPO (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)
   (Case T-623/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT! - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, A. Marx and A. Berger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2015 (Case R 479/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT! as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Removal from the register of T-40/97

text:
C 318/36        [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               18 . 10 . 97
        Removal from the register of T-40/97 (')                Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                    ( 97/C 318/71 )                             removal from the register of Case T-40/97: Pearle BV,
                                                                Hans Prijsoptiek Franchise BV, Van der Wiel BV, Prins
            (Language of the case: Dutch)                       Brillen BV, Brilservice BV and Optical Retail Group BV v.
                                                                Commission of the European Communities.
By order of 23 July 1997 the President of the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First            H OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.


title: Case T-168/13: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — EPAW v Commission (Action for annulment — Legal person governed by private law — Absence of proof of existence in law — Article 44(5)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/12

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — EPAW v Commission
   (Case T-168/13) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Legal person governed by private law - Absence of proof of existence in law - Article 44(5)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2014/C 78/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by K. Herrmann and P. Oliver, and subsequently by L. Pignatoro Nolin, K. Herrmann and J. Tomkin, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Communication of 6 June 2012 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, entitled ‘Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market’, and of the Commission’s decision of 21 January 2013 rejecting as inadmissible the request made by the applicant for review by the Commission of that communication.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-160/02: Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 180/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.7.2002
Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio                         Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the               Appeal:                       Cancellation Division
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                         Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                        (Case T-160/02)                                                                94
                        (2002/C 180/51)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio
                                                                         Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the
                                                                             Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (Case T-161/02)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, established in
                                                                                (2002/C 180/52)
Alava (Spain), represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the            An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
      OHIM of 28 February 2002;                                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, established in
—     Order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                   Alava (Spain), represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                OHIM of 28 February 2002;
                                                                         —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
The Community trade           Figurative mark for the ace of
mark concerned:               spades depicting a single sword
                              pointing upwards — Figurative
                              mark         registered       under
                              No 000089565 for products                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                              within Class 16 (playing cards)
                                                                         The Community trade           Figurative mark depicting a
Proprietor of the right to    The applicant                              mark concerned:               ‘caballo de bastos’ (mounted jack
the trade mark or sign                                                                                of clubs) — Registered trade mark
whose cancellation is                                                                                No 0000089961 for goods
sought:                                                                                within Class 16 (playing cards)
Applicant for cancel-         Société France Cartes
lation:                                                                  (See the information for Case T-160/02 Heraclio Fournier v
                                                                         OHIM)
Decision of the Cancel-       Application dismissed
lation Division:


title: Case T-704/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Banco de Sabadell and Banco Gallego v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/47

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Banco de Sabadell and Banco Gallego v Commission
   (Case T-704/13)
   2014/C 52/91
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco de Sabadell, SA (Sabadell, Spain) and Banco Gallego, SA (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-224/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich (Equal treatment — Remuneration of university professors — Indirect discrimination — Length-of-service increment — Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law for which it is responsible — Infringements attributable to a national court)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 275/13
Maria Walcher and Bundesamt für Soziales und Behinderten-                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
wesen Steiermark, on the interpretation of Council Directive
80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                                              of 30 September 2003
employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ
1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic             in Case C-224/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to                  the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Gerhard
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ                                       Köbler v Republik Österreich (1)
1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)                     (Equal treatment — Remuneration of university professors
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;               — Indirect discrimination — Length-of-service increment —
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September                    Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                 by infringements of Community law for which it is respon-
                                                                                sible — Infringements attributable to a national court)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/21)
1.    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their                             (Language of the case: German)
      employer, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
      accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
      and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      on which the European Union is founded precludes a rule that                                in the European Court Reports)
      an employee with a significant shareholding in the private
      limited company that employs him, but who does not exercise a
      dominant influence over that company, loses, pursuant to the
      Austrian case-law relating to shareholder loans in lieu of capital
      contributions, his entitlement to the guarantee in respect of          In Case C-224/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      claims for outstanding pay which result from the employer’s            EC by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria),
      insolvency and are covered by Article 4(2) of that directive if, in    for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      the 60 days from the time he first could have become aware             court between Gerhard Köbler and Republik Österreich, on
      that the company was no longer creditworthy, he fails to make          the interpretation, first, of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now,
      any genuine demand for payment of salary owed to him.                  after amendment, Article 39 EC) and, secondly, the judgments
                                                                             of the Court in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93Brasserie du
                                                                             Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029 and Case C-54/
                                                                             96Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, the Court, composed of:
2.    To avoid abuses a Member State is, in principle, entitled to take      G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
      measures that deny such an employee an entitlement to a                R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presi-
      guarantee in respect of claims for outstanding salary arising          dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
      after the date on which an employee who is not a shareholder           Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
      would have resigned on the ground of non-payment of his                Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,
      salary, unless it is established that there has been no abusive        Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
      conduct. As regards the guarantee to pay claims covered by             Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
      Article 4(2) of Directive 80/987, as amended, the Member               which it has ruled:
      State is not entitled to assume that, as a general rule, an
      employee who is not a shareholder would have resigned on the
      ground of non-payment of his salary before his salary had been         1.    The principle that Member States are obliged to make good
      in arrears for a period of three months.                                     damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community
                                                                                law for which they are responsible is also applicable where the
                                                                                alleged infringement stems from a decision of a court adjudicat-
                                                                                ing at last instance where the rule of Community law infringed
                                                                                is intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach is
                                                                                sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                         breach and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties.
                                                                                In order to determine whether the infringement is sufficiently
                                                                                serious when the infringement at issue stems from such a
                                                                                decision, the competent national court, taking into account the
                                                                                specific nature of the judicial function, must determine whether
                                                                                that infringement is manifest. It is for the legal system of each
                                                                                Member State to designate the court competent to determine
                                                                                disputes relating to that reparation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/14                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
2.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39           company established in that second Member State, and made
      EC) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the              available to the worker by his employer who is also established in the
      Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                   second Member State.
      workers within the Community are to be interpreted as meaning
      that they preclude the grant, under conditions such as those laid
                                                                              (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
      down in Article 50a of the Gehaltsgesetz 1956 (law on salaries
      of 1956), as amended in 1997, of a special length-of-
      service increment which, according to the interpretation of the
      Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) in its judgment of 24 June
      1998, constitutes a loyalty bonus.
3.    An infringement of Community law, such as that stemming in                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      the circumstances of the main proceedings from the judgment
      of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of 24 June 1998, does not have                                   of 30 September 2003
      the requisite manifest character for liability under Community
      law to be incurred by a Member State for a decision of one of           in Case C-239/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
      its courts adjudicating at last instance.                                         mission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                    (Agriculture — EAGGF — Partial annulment of Regulation
                                                                              (EC) No 690/2001 — Special market support measures in
                                                                              the beef sector — Implementing regulation of the Com-
                                                                              mission providing for compulsory co-financing by the Mem-
                                                                                ber States)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/23)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         of 2 October 2003                                                        in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-232/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Politierechtbank te Mechelen): Criminal procedure                         In Case C-239/01, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D.
                     against Hans van Lent (1)                                Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Sedemund) supported
                                                                              by Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: J. Molde and J. Bering
                                                                              Liisberg) with an address for service in Luxembourg v Com-
(Freedom of movement for workers — Vehicle leasing —                          mission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß and
Obligation to register vehicle in worker’s Member State of                    M. Niejahr): Application for annulment of Article 5(5) of
                               residence)                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 of 3 April 2001
                                                                              on special market support measures in the beef sector (OJ
                           (2003/C 275/22)                                    2001 L 95, p. 8), in so far as that provision requires each
                                                                              Member State concerned to finance 30 % of the price of the
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            meat purchased under that regulation, the Court, composed of:
                                                                              G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
                                                                              R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
                                                                              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case C-232/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    30 September 2003, in which it:
EC by the Politierechtbank te Mechelen (Belgium) for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                    1.    Annuls Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/
court against Hans van Lent, on the interpretation of Article                       2001 of 3 April 2001 on special market support measures in
39 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                         the beef sector in so far as that provision requires each Member
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr                       State concerned to finance 30 % of the price of the meat
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                      purchased under that regulation;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                    2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
Article 39 EC precludes national rules of a Member State, such as
those in the present case, which prohibit a worker who is domiciled           (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
in that Member State from using on its territory a vehicle registered
in another neighbouring Member State, belonging to a leasing


title: Case T-703/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2016 — Groupe Go Sport v EUIPO — Design Go (GO SPORT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU word mark GO SPORT — Earlier national word marks GO — Partial refusal of registration by the Opposition Division — Late filing of the statement of grounds of appeal — Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2016 — Groupe Go Sport v EUIPO — Design Go (GO SPORT)
   (Case T-703/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU word mark GO SPORT - Earlier national word marks GO - Partial refusal of registration by the Opposition Division - Late filing of the statement of grounds of appeal - Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2017/C 022/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Design Go Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2015 (Case R 569/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Design Go and Groupe Go Sport.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Groupe Go Sport to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-440/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — BT Telecommunications v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/16

         Action brought on 12 August 2011 — BT Telecommunications v Council
   (Case T-440/11)
   2011/C 290/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BT Telecommunications PUE (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkute Pavan, A. Smaliukas and E. Matulionyte, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for inclusion of the applicant in the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the right of defence and the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as:

                           —

                           at no time it provided for the communication of detailed reasons for the inclusion of the applicant in the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures; and

                           —

                           it did not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to the benefit of a procedure allowing it to effectively request its removal from the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in that it held in the contested measures that the applicant is in some way associated with and sponsoring the Lukashenko regime, or in some way participating in violations of international electoral standards or crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition, or in the importation into Belarus of equipment which might be used for internal repression.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed fundamental the right to property provided for in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in an unjustified and disproportionate manner without compelling evidence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringes the principle of proportionality in that it imposed a disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant without providing adequate procedural guarantees and compelling evidence.


title: Case T-531/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Hamas v Council

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/18

         Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Hamas v Council
   (Case T-531/11)
   2012/C 126/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, in so far as that decision concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011, in so far as that regulation concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1) concerning the taking of a decision by a competent authority, in so far as that authority:

                           —

                           should be a judicial authority and not an administrative authority;

                           —

                           should be able to rely upon the principle of cooperation in good faith;

                           —

                           cannot be the Government of the United States because of the special features of the rules governing listing in the United States;

                           —

                           cannot be an authority which does not respect the procedural rights of the persons concerned.

                     The applicant further claims that the Council does not produce any evidence showing that, in this case, the national decisions concerned are based on serious evidence or clues.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in respect of the accuracy of the facts, since the Council failed to prove the facts that it relies on autonomously. The applicant claims that the inaccuracies observed in its application confirm the error in respect of the accuracy of the facts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment as regards the terrorist nature of the applicant, since the classification proposed by the Council is not consistent with the criteria laid down in Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The applicant submits that the criteria used by the Council are based on an incorrect interpretation of the term ‘terrorism’ which is incompatible with international substantive law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that insufficient consideration was taken of the evolution of the situation over time, since the Council did not in fact carry out the review provided for in Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of non-interference.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the statement of reasons sent to the applicant does not contain any details on the serious and credible evidence and clues used against the applicant.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant submits that those principles were infringed:

                           —

                           during the national phase of the procedure, whilst the Council ought to have carried out a review in this connection, and

                           —

                           during the European phase of the procedure, owing to the insufficient nature of the evidence supplied by the Council to the applicant.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, since an illegal fund-freezing measure cannot be regarded as a justified interference with the right to property.

      (1)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: Case T-501/08: Action brought on 18 November 2008 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/34

         Action brought on 18 November 2008 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more)
   (Case T-501/08)
   (2009/C 19/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2008 in case R 1388/2007-4 and reject the opposition;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, should it become an intervener in this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘see more’ for goods in class 9 — application No 4 034 741

      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: Danish trade mark registration No VR 2004 01590 of the word mark ‘CMORE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41; Finish trade mark registration No 231 366 of the word mark ‘CMORE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-460/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  by the Republic of Poland against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/22

         Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Republic of Poland against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-460/05)
   (2006/C 60/44)
   Language of the case: Polish
   An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by the Republic of Poland, represented by Jarosław Pietras.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare invalid Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications; (1)

               2.

               Conduct the case in Polish;

               3.

               Order the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the costs of the action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Government of the Republic of Poland contends that an essential procedural requirement was breached by virtue of the inadequacy of the reasons given for the wording, as adopted, of Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC.
   Those articles set out separate rules on the recognition of acquired rights which are to apply to Polish qualifications of nurses responsible for general care and midwives; those rules constitute a derogation from the rules relating to recognition of acquired rights specific to nurses responsible for general care and midwives which are in force in regard to qualifications obtained in the other Member States. The preamble to Directive 2005/36/EC does not set out any reasons for the adoption of the abovementioned derogating rules on the recognition of acquired rights specific to nurses responsible for general care and midwives such as can justify those rules on grounds of Polish professional qualifications.
   The absence of reasons explaining why the aforementioned provisions were adopted amounts to a breach of Article 253 of the EC Treaty in view of the fact that, in the course of the legislative deliberations leading to the adoption of Directive 2005/36/EC, the provisions in question lost their character as measures benefiting from the status of rules which did not require to be separately reasoned. Notwithstanding the fact that their content was set out in the provisions of the Treaty of Accession, in the light of Article 9 of the Treaty of Accession and the course of the deliberations in respect of Directive 2005/36/EC, those measures do not benefit from a presumption that they were properly reasoned merely by virtue of the fact that their content was set out in that Treaty.

      (1)  OJ L 255 of 30.09.2005, p. 22.


title: Case C-103/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 13 March 2009 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Weald Leasing Limited

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 13 March 2009 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Weald Leasing Limited
   (Case C-103/09)
   2009/C 129/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Defendant: Weald Leasing Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances such as those that exist in the present case, where a largely exempt trader adopts an asset leasing structure involving an intermediate third party, instead of purchasing assets outright, does the asset leasing structure or any part of it give rise to a tax advantage which is contrary to the purpose of the Sixth Directive (1) within the meaning of paragraph 74 of the Judgment in Case C-255/02 Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments Ltd v. CCE (‘Halifax’)?

               2.

               Having regard to the fact that the Sixth VAT Directive contemplates the leasing of assets by exempt or partly exempt traders, and having regard to the Court's reference to ‘normal commercial operations’ in paragraphs 69 and 80 of the Judgement in Halifax and 27 of Case C-162/07 Ampliscientifica and also to the absence of any such reference in the Judgement in Case C-425/06 Part Service, is it an abusive practice for an exempt, or partly exempt, trader to do so even though in the context of its normal commercial operations it does not engage in leasing transactions?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is yes:

                           (a)

                           what is the relevance of ‘normal commercial operations’ in the context of paragraphs 74 and 75 of the Judgment in Halifax: is it relevant to paragraph 74 or to paragraph 75 or to both;

                           (b)

                           is the reference to ‘normal commercial operations’ a reference to:

                                       (1)

                                       operations in which the taxpayer in question typically engages;

                                       (2)

                                       operations in which two or more parties engage at arm's length;

                                       (3)

                                       operations which are commercially viable;

                                       (4)

                                       operations which create the commercial burdens and risks typically associated with related commercial benefits;

                                       (5)

                                       operations that are not artificial in that they have commercial substance;

                                       (6)

                                       any other type or category of operations?

               4.

               If the asset leasing structure or any part of it is found to constitute an abusive practice, what is the appropriate redefinition? In particular, should the national court or the tax collecting authority:

                           (a)

                           ignore the existence of the intermediate third party and direct that VAT be paid on an open market value of the rentals;

                           (b)

                           redefine the leasing structure as an outright purchase; or

                           (c)

                           redefine the transactions in any other way which either the court or thetax collecting authority considers to be an appropriate means by which to re-establish the situation that would have prevailed in the absence of the transactions constituting the abusive practice?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of Assessment OJ L 145, p. 1