title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 June 1996 in Case T-162/94, NMB France and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Anti-dumping duties - Ball-bearings - Reimbursement - 'Duty as a cost' rule - Difference of treatment between associated importers and independent importers - Previous judgment of the Court of Justice - Res judicata)

text:
No C 210/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 7 . 96
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 5 June 1996                                                         of 5 June 1996
in Case T-92/94: Rodolfo Maslias v. European                           in Case T-162/94, NMB France and Others v. Commission
                           Parliament ( 1 )                                           of the European Communities ( ] )
(Officials — Household allowance — Spouse's income from                (Anti-dumping duties — Ball-bearings — Reimbursement
employment in excess of the ceiling under the Staff                    — 'Duty as a cost' rule — Difference of treatment between
Regulations — Retroactive withdrawal ofentitlement to the              associated importers and independent importers —
         allowance — Recovery of undue payment)                        Previous judgment of the Court of Justice — Res
                          ( 96/C 210/29 )                                                           judicata)
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/30 )
                 (Language of tbe case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: English)
In Case T-92/94 : Rodolfo Maslias, an official of the                  In Case T-162/94 , NMB France SARL, whose registered
European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented               office is in Argenteuil ( France ), NMB-Minebea-GmbH,
by Charissios Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an                whose registered office is in Langen ( Germany ), NMB (UK )
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   Ltd, whose registered office is in Bracknell , Berkshire
Evelyn Korn, 22 Rue de Nassau, v . European Parliament                 ( United Kingdom ), and NMB Italia Sri , whose registered
( Agent: Jannis Pantalis ) — application, first, for annulment         office is in Mazzo di Rho ( Italy ), represented by Ian
of the decision of 21 June 1993 withdrawing, with effect               Forrester QC, of the Scots Bar, Jacquelyn F. MacLennan,
from 1 August 1988 , the applicant's entitlement to the                Solicitor, and A. Kaplanidis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with
household allowance and providing for recovery of the sum              an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
of LR 676 800 , and, second, for annulment of the decision             Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the
of 3 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint —               European Communities ( Agents : Eric L. White, and
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of:             Claus-Michael Happe ), supported by Federation of
B. Vesterdorf, acting for the President, and P. Lindh and A.           European Bearing Manufacturers ' Associations ( Febma ),
Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the           whose headquarters is in Frankfurt ( Germany ), represented
Registrar, has given a judgment of 5 June 1 996 , in which             by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller, Rechtsanwàlte ,
it :                                                                   Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias
                                                                       Hardt — application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                       Decisions 92/332/EEC, 92/333/EEC, 92/334/EEC and
1 . annuls the decision of the Parliament of2 1 June 1994 in           92/335/EEC of 3 June 1992 concerning applications for the
     so far as it requires the recovery of sums unduly paid in         refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports
     respect of the household allowance for the period from            of certain ball-bearings originating in Singapore ( OJ No
     1 August 1988 to 30 November 1989;                                L 185 , 1992 , pp . 35 , 38 , 41 and 44 ) — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ( Second Chamber,
                                                                       Extended Composition ) composed of H. Kirschner,
2 , orders the Parliament to pay default interest at the               President, B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos
     annual rate of 8% on all sums recovered by it in excess           and A. Potocki, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio Gonzalez,
     of the limits laid down by the present judgment;                  Administrator, gave a judgment on 5 June 1996 in which
                                                                       it :
3 , dismisses the remainder of the application;                         1 . declares that it is unnecessary to give judgment on the
                                                                            action brought by NMB France SARL;
4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                       2 , declares that it is unnecessary to give judgment on the
                                                                            action brought by NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK)
                                                                            Ltd and NMB Italia Sri to the extent to which it relates
(!) OJ No C 132 of 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                            to the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties collected
                                                                            in relation to the period from 21 September 1990;
                                                                       3.   dismisses the remainder of the action;
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 7. 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 21 0/ 13
4 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear the            with an address for service in Luxembourg a the Chambers
      costs, with the exception of those of the intervener,            of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. Council of the
      which shall bear its own costs .                                 European Union ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio
                                                                       Tanca ) — application for annulment of Council Decision
(!) OJ No C 246 , 24 . 9 . 1992 .                                      94/660/EC, Euratom, of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       No L 257, 1994 , p . 20 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                       ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts , President, P.
                                                                       Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June
                          of 5 June 1996                               1996 , in which it:
in     Case   T-75 /95 :      Giinzler Aluminium      GmbH     v.
        Commission of the European Communities (')                     1 , rejects the application;
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing
                  remission of import duties)
                                                                       2 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 210/31 )                                  costs .
                (Language of the case: German)                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-75/95 : Giinzler Aluminium GmbH, established at
Ostfildern, Germany, represented by Jurgen StrauE,
Rechtsanwalt, 11 Uhlandstrafêe, Stuttgart, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Claudia
Schmidt ) — application for annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 November 1994, document K(91 1)3006                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
final, concerning remission of import duties, which is
addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany — the Court                                       of 11 June 1996
of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët,           in Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo v . Commission of
President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor,                            the European Communities ( 1 )
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Transfers ofpart of an official's remuneration
on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                                          in the currency of a Member State other than that in which
                                                                               the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it                                      96/C 210/33 )
      seeks that directions be issued to the Commission;
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
      unfounded;
                                                                       In Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo, an official of the
3 , orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Commission of the European Communities , represented by
                                                                       Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia
( ] ) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      Porras, of the Salamanca Bar v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Amparo Alcover San
                                                                       Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Carlos Gômez de la
                                                                       Cruz ) — application for ( 1 ) annulment of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaint concerning the transfer of part of the
                                                                       applicant's remuneration to a building account in Danish
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               crowns ( 2 ) confirmation of the applicant's entitlement to
                           of 6 June 1996                              such a transfer ( 3 ) damages — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-3 82/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria              ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.
Italiana ( Confindustria ) and Aldo Romoli v. Council of the           Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges ; B. Pastor, Principal
                       European Union ( 1 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                         11 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
                              Committee)
                            ( 96/C 210/32 )                             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        2 , each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
 In Case T-382/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria
                                                                        (') OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
 Italiana ( Confindustria ), established in Rome , and Aldo
 Romoli, residing in Milan, represented by Fausto Capelli, of
 the Milan Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the Luxembourg Bar,


title: Case C-58/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Commissioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February 2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against Inland Revenue Commissioners

text:
C 134/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Com-
nanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000                        missioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February
in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische                    2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against
           Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen                                           Inland Revenue Commissioners
                          (Case C-45/01)                                                             (Case C-58/01)
                         (2001/C 134/06)                                                            (2001/C 134/07)
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 order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       European Communities by an order of the Special Com-
(Federal Finance Court) of 14 December 2000, received at the               missioners (United Kingdom) of 6 February 2001, which was
Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in             received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2001, for a
the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psycholog-            preliminary ruling in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV
ie against Finanzamt Giessen on the following questions:                   against Inland Revenue Commissioners, on the following
                                                                           questions:
1.   Does psychotherapeutic treatment, given in an out-
     patient facility provided by a foundation (charitable                 1.    In the circumstances set out in the Order for reference, is
     establishment) employing qualified psychologists who                        the 5 % charge specified in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of
     are licensed under the Medical Practitioners Law (Heil-                     Article 10.3 of the UK/Netherlands Double Taxation
     praktikergesetz) but who are not registered as doctors,                     Convention 1980 (‘the 5 % charge’) a withholding tax on
     qualify as ‘closely related activities’ to hospital and medical             profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent com-
     care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive                   pany within article 5.1 of Council Directive
     77/388/EEC (1)?                                                             90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 (‘the Directive’)?
2.   In order for there to be an ‘other duly recognized                    2.    If the 5 % charge is such a withholding tax is its effect
     establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning of                    preserved as a consequence of Article 7.2 of the Directive?
     Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC, must there be
     a formal recognition procedure or can recognition also
                                                                           3.    If the 5% charge is preserved only as a consequence of
     derive from other regulations (e.g. regulations concerning
                                                                                article 7.2 of the Directive, is Article 7.2 invalid for want
     the assumption of costs by authorities responsible for the
                                                                                of reasoning or failure to consult the ESC and the
     provision of social security) which apply equally to
                                                                                European Parliament, with the result that it does not have
     hospitals, centres for medical treatment and other estab-
                                                                                the effect of preserving the right of the United Kingdom
     lishments?
                                                                                to charge the 5 % tax?
     Is an exemption from tax unavailable to the extent that
     the authorities responsible for providing social security
     do not reimburse, or only partially reimburse, patients               (1) on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of
                                                                               parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ
     for the costs of psychotherapeutic treatment given by the                 L 225, 20.08.1990, p. 6).
     aforementioned employees of the plaintiff?
3.   Is the psychotherapeutic treatment provided by the
     plaintiff exempt from tax on the basis of the neutrality of
     value added tax, because the psychotherapists it employs
     could have provided the same treatment on a tax-exempt
     basis under Article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC if
     they had provided it themselves as self-employed taxable
     persons?
                                                                           Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission
4.   Is the plaintiff entitled to rely on the tax exemption of             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     its transactions involving psychotherapeutic treatment
     under Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 77/388/EEC?                                        (Case C-59/01)
     Pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the
     European Communities, the appeal proceedings are
     stayed.                                                                                (2001/C 134/08)
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                           2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Christina Tufvesson and Antonio Aresu, acting
                                                                           as Agents.


title: Case C-484/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma, Rosario Mesa Mesa

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma, Rosario Mesa Mesa
   (Case C-484/13)
   2013/C 352/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixabank SA

      Defendants: Manuel María Rueda Ledesma, Rosario Mesa Mesa

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-422/11: Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Computer Resources v Publications Office

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/13

         Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Computer Resources v Publications Office
   (Case T-422/11)
   2011/C 290/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Computer Resources International (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Publications Office of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011, to reject the offers submitted by the applicant in the framework of the open tender No AO 10340 ‘Computing services — software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications’ (OJ 2011/S 66-106099); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant disregarded an essential formal requirement, as the contested decision does not contain any reasoning as far as the particular grounds that the awarding authority took into account when concluding that the offer of the applicant was abnormally low.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicable procedure, as enshrined in Article 139 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (1).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has made a misuse of procedure or issued its decision with no proper legal basis or at least erred as far as its reasoning is concerned, as the clarifications given by the applicant were not understood and remained unanswered.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European Communities v. Muireann Noonan (Appeal - Official - Admissibility of an action challenging a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid down in a competition notice the lawfulness of which is contested)

text:
No C 268/6              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                                             ( Fifth Chamber)
    provisions necessary to comply with the requirements
    arising under Council Directive 88/29S/EEC of                                             of 11 August 1995
    22 March 1 988 amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating               in Case C-l /94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    to the coordination of procedures on the award of                  Consiglio di Stato ): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA
    public supply contracts and repealing certain provisions           and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and
    of Directive 80/767/EEC and under Council Directive                                              Others (M
    89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 amending Directive                      (Common organization of the market — Sugar quotas —
    71 /305/EEC concerning coordination ofprocedures for                               Transfers between undertakings)
    the award of public works contracts, the Federal
    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      ( 95/C 268/12 )
    under the EC Treaty;
2 , orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
    costs .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
H OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-l /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                       the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato (Council ofState)
                                                                       ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                       before that court between Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    SpA and Others and Ministero deH'Agricoltura e delle
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                              Foreste and Others — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                       common organization of the markets in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                         No L 177, p. 4 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 193/82 of
            Communities v. Muireann Noonan ( x )                       26 January 1982 laying down general rules for transfers of
(Appeal — Official — Admissibility ofan action challenging             quotas in the sugar sector ( OJ No L 21 , p. 3 ) — the Court
a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid           ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
down in a competition notice the lawfulness of which is                the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
                              contested)                               Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
                           ( 95/C 268/ 11 )                            H. A. Rùhl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       I . Member States may not, for the marketing year starting
In Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                               on 1 July, exercise the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on
Communities ( agent: John Forman ) — appeal against the                      them by Article 25 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of 16 September 1993 in                       organization of the markets in the sugar sector after the
Case T-60/92 Muireann Noonan v. Commission [ 1993 ]                          date of 1 March laid down by Council Regulation (EEC)
ECR 11-911 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general
other party to the proceedings being: Muireann Noonan,                       rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector, even if
represented by James O'Reilly, Senior Counsel, with an                       the Council Regulation fixing the quotas and stating
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                          that power to be applicable has been adopted after
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener the Court ( Fifth                      1 March, since no Community legislation expressly
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                            derogating from that time limit has been enacted;
( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                        2 , the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on Member States by
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a                  Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 may be
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                    exercised at the same time as an adjustment of quotas
                                                                             pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 193/82
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                    following a transfer of undertakings or factories,
                                                                             provided that the specific conditions governing the
                                                                             application of each of those provisions are complied
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                  with;
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       3 . Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 must be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that Member States may reduce
                                                                             the A quota and the B quota by 10% each;


title: Case C-258/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social, IP
   (Case C-258/13)
   2013/C 215/08
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Varas Cíveis de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda

      Defendant: Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

      Questions referred

   Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) which lays down the right to effective legal protection preclude national legislation that prohibits legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from obtaining legal aid?
   Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be construed as having ensured the right to effective judicial protection, where the domestic law of the Member State, whilst excluding legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from receiving legal aid, automatically grants them an exemption from the costs and charges relating to legal proceedings where they are insolvent or in receivership?

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-263/01 P: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competitions — Actions for annulment — Pre-selection procedure — Conduct of tests — Rights of the defence — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 109/17
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                             (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
                       of 6 December 2001
                                                                           in Case C-263/01 P: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the
in Case C-219/01 P: Javier Reyna González del Valle v                                        European Communities (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Competitions — Actions for annulment — Pre-
(Appeal — Officials — Grading — Application brought out                    selection procedure — Conduct of tests — Rights of the
           of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                                      defence — Principle of equal treatment)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/28)
                          (2002/C 109/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-263/01 P: Carla Giulietti, residing in Brussels
                                                                           (Belgium), represented by S. Diana, avocat — appeal against
In Case C-219/01 P: Javier Reyna González del Valle (Agent:               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
J.M. Valoria de Arana) — appeal against the order of the Court             Communities (Second Chamber) of 2 May 2001 in Case
of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)              T-167/99 and T-174/99 Giulietti and Others v Commission
of 28 March 2001 in Case T-130/00 Reyna González del Valle                [2001] ECR FP I-A-93 and II-441, seeking to have that
v Commission [2001] not published, seeking to have that                    judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being
order set aside and the applicant’s claims at first instance               Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
upheld, the other party to the proceedings being Commission                and C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by D. Waelbroeck), Ana
of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curral and J. Gutiér-              Caprile, residing in Brussels, Farbizio Dell’Olio, residing in Bari
rez Gisbert) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                     (Italy), Konrad Fuhrmann, residing in Brussels, and Olivier
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and                        Radelet, residing in Brussels — the Court (First Chamber),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-              composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
6 December 2001, in which it:                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           13 December 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Mr Javier Reyna González del Valle to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders Ms. Giulietti to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case C-251/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.° Juizo — 1.a Secção by order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa

text:
C 233/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
                                                                          Article 12 prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the               nationality. Article 49 EC, for its part, lays down the principle
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-              of freedom to provide services, according to which, an
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with               economic operator established in one Member State must be
      Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998                   able to pursue his activities in another Member State, without
      amending       Directives       80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,        his nationality giving rise to discrimination by comparison
      91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and repe-                 with the nationals of the second Member State. However,
      aling Directive 92/87/EEC (1), the French Republic has              Article 6 of Portaria (order) No 17568 of 6 February 1960
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of            requires ‘foreign entities or individuals’ to obtain a licence for
      Directive 98/67/EC;                                                 the taking of aerial photographs or film. The Portuguese
                                                                          authorities confirm that they do apply the legislation at issue,
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           considering such restrictions to be necessary, not on grounds
                                                                          of the nationality of the entity which applies for authorisation
                                                                          or is to use such photographs, but on the basis of the need to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           protect the strategic interests of national defence. However,
                                                                          mere interpretation by the Portuguese administration which
                                                                          makes more flexible the provisions of the aforementioned
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  order, with a view to making the conditions laid down for
put forward in Case C-236/00 (2); the period prescribed for               foreigners similar to those laid down for nationals, is not
transposition expired on 31 December 1998.                                sufficient to cure the incompatibility.
(1) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
(2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
                                                                          tário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção by
                                                                          order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against
                                                                          the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e
                                                                                Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa
Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                                 (Case C-251/00)
                              Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 233/47)
                         (Case C-250/00)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2000/C 233/46)                                  European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributário de
                                                                          1.a Instância de Lisboa 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção (Second Division
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before              — First Chamber of the Fiscal Court of First Instance of Lisbon)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June               of 13 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Maria Patakia and Miguel França, of its Legal              Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                 da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              das Alfândegas de Lisboa. The Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instân-
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  cia de Lisboa, 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção, asks the Court of Justice
                                                                          to rule on: (a) the interpretation of Article 201(3) of the
                                                                          Community Customs Code (CCC), established by Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992; (b) the
                                                                          validity of the Commission’s decision, in order to be able to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which             answer the following questions:
      only authorises Community nationals to take aerial
      photographs or film in exceptional and duly justified               1.    Is it permissible to require payment of the customs debt
      cases, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12             by importers who, acting in good faith and with due care,
      and 49 EC;                                                                processed their declarations, over a number of years,
                                                                                unaware of any irregularities which were known to either
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           the Turkish or Community authorities?
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/25
2.    Since the Turkish authorities were aware of the inaccuracy       Must Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
      of the content of the ATR certificates, which they               Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
      authenticated, is there no possibility of making the             Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by
      Turkish State liable for payment of the customs debt?            the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
3.    Since the Commission suspected or was aware of the
                                                                       amended version of the Convention at p. 77) and by the
      conduct of the Turkish authorities, referred to in point 2
                                                                       Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
      above, was the Commission under a duty to warn the
                                                                       Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), be interpreted as
      Community operators?
                                                                       meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State
                                                                       may, in another Contracting State, be sued, in matters relating
4.    Is breach of that possible duty such as to exonerate the         to a contract, in the courts for any of the places of performance
      (customs) declarants from liability where during all those       of the obligation in question, in particular where, consisting in
      years they acted in good faith in respect of the contents        an obligation not to do something — such as, in the present
      of their declarations?                                           case, an undertaking to act exclusively with another party to a
                                                                       contract with a view to submitting a joint tender in connection
                                                                       with a public contract and not to enter into a commitment
5.    Is the decision of the Commission and of the Portuguese          with another partner — that obligation is to be performed in
      customs authorities, on the advice of the former, to             any place whatever in the world?
      proceed to post-clearance recovery of the import duties
      valid without previously putting in motion the procedure
      provided for by Articles 22 and 25 of the EEC/Turkey
      Association Agreement (signed in Brussels on 23 Novem-           If not, may that defendant be sued specifically in the courts for
      ber 1970)?                                                       one of the places of performance of the obligation and, if so,
                                                                       by reference to what criterion must that place be determined?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                                                                       Appeal brought on 10 July 2000 by Odette Simon against
                                                                       the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel,              in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of the
Brussels (Fourth Chamber), by judgment of that court of                                   European Communities (1)
19 June 2000 in the case of S.A. Besix NV, formerly called
S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v WABAG
Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co                                               (Case C-274/00 P)
KG, a company incorporated under German law, and
Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W.
Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                                                (2000/C 233/49)
                       under German law
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by
                         (Case C-256/00)                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (Single Judge) in Case T- 177/97 Odette Simon v Commission
                         (2000/C 233/48)                               of the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July 2000 by
                                                                       Odette Simon, represented by J.-N. Louis and Véronique Peere,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d’Appel                 at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
(Court of Appeal), Brussels (Fourth Chamber), of 19 June
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A. Besix NV,           The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
formerly called S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v
WABAG Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH &
Co KG, a company incorporated under German law, and                    —     Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Planungs-        und     Forschungsgesellschaft     Dipl.    Ing.            the European Communities (Single Judge) of 10 May
W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                          2000 in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of
under German law, on the following question:                                 the European Communities;


title: Case T-294/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Nordmilch v OHIM (Vitality) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Vitality — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Nordmilch v OHIM (Vitality)
   (Case T-294/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Vitality - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 128/70)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nordmilch eG (Zeven, Germany) (represented by: R. Schneider, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2006 (Case R 746/2004-4) concerning the registration of the word sign Vitality as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Nordmilch eG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-441/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 3824 90 97 and 2106 90 92 — Product in powder form composed of calcium carbonate (95 %) and modified starch (5 %))

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/18

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen
   (Case C-441/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 3824 90 97 and 2106 90 92 - Product in powder form composed of calcium carbonate (95 %) and modified starch (5 %)))
   (2017/C 104/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Madaus GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 must be interpreted to the effect that a product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for the manufacture of calcium tablets in the form of simple tablets, effervescent tablets and chewable tablets, consisting of chemically defined calcium carbonate in powder form and, to improve suitability for use in tablets, added modified starch, and with a starch content of less than 5 % by weight, must be classified under heading 2106 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case T-374/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Moonlight v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/19

         Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Moonlight v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)
   (Case T-374/13)
   2013/C 274/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Moonlight GmbH (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and M. Nielen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG (Schlitz, Germany)

      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) (OHIM) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 676/2012-4 and require OHIM to dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark No 6 084 081;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Moon’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark No 6 084 081

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Moonlight GmbH

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-426/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (300)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/47

         Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (300)
   (Case T-426/07)
   (2008/C 22/88)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by D. Rzążewska, legal adviser)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   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 3 September 2007 in Case R 1275/2006-4 in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘300’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 28 and 41 (Application No 3 875 416).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1) since, in the applicant's submission, the sign ‘300’ is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character in relation to the goods and services indicated.

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


title: Case F-43/10: Action brought on 4 June 2010 — Cerafogli v ECB

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/56

         Action brought on 4 June 2010 — Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case F-43/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/90
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria-Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the ECB rejecting the claims of the appellant concerning the discrimination and attempts to her dignity due to the behaviour of her management and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank dated 24 November 2009 rejecting the claims of the Appellant of discrimination and attempts to her dignity because of the behaviour of her management and, if necessary, the annulment of the decision dated 24 March 2010 rejecting the special appeal;

               —

               by consequence, to give the Appellant the benefit of her requests as stated in her administrative review and more particular:

                           —

                           to stop any form of discrimination and mobbing against Mrs Cerafogli be it in verbal acts and in working assignments and arrangements.

                           —

                           to receive the written withdrawal by Mr G. of his offensive and threatening statements;

               —

               in any case, the compensation of the moral and material prejudice suffered;

               —

               the order that the ECB pays all the costs;

               —

               the order that the ECB provides the full internal administrative inquiry report with all its annexes, including the minutes of the hearings. Furthermore, the order that the ECB provides also all communication between the inquiry panel and the Executive Board and/or the ECB President;

               —

               the summoning of Mrs L. previous Social Counselor of the Defendant, as a witness.


title: Joined Cases T-492/13 and T-493/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Schmidt Spiele v OHIM (Representation of boards for parlour games) (Community trade mark — Applications for figurative Community trade marks representing boards for parlour games — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3))

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Schmidt Spiele v OHIM (Representation of boards for parlour games)
   (Joined Cases T-492/13 and T-493/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Applications for figurative Community trade marks representing boards for parlour games - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3)))
   (2015/C 127/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmidt Spiele (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Sommer, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 (Cases R 1767/2012-1 and R 1768/2012-1), relating to applications for registration as Community trade marks of figurative marks representing boards for parlour games.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Cases R 1767/2012-1 and R 1768/2012-1), in so far as they dismiss the applications of Schmidt Spiele GmbH for goods and services other than ‘computers’, ‘(programs for) computer games; programs for video games recorded on cartridges, disks, CD-ROM, cassettes, tapes and mini-disks’, ‘computer software [recorded programs]; computer programs (downloadable); computer software [recorded programs]’, in Class 9, ‘goods made from paper and cardboard (included in Class 16); matter printed in colour’, in Class 16, ‘games [including electronic games and video games] except as apparatus adapted for screens or external monitors’, ‘playing cards’, ‘parlour games; games of cards’, ‘portable apparatus for electronic games’, ‘parlour games’ and ‘video games being apparatus adapted for use with screens or external monitors’, in Class 28, and ‘entertainment’, ‘arranging and conducting of entertainment events’ and ‘services in the field of leisure activities’, in Class 41.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders Schmidt Spiele to bear half the costs incurred by OHIM, and half its own costs. Orders OHIM to bear half the costs incurred by Schmidt Spiele, and half its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-213/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.
   (Case C-213/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/113
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case T-826/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spain v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Regime of taxation on companies enabling undertakings that are tax resident in Spain to amortise the financial goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies that are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for a stay of execution — Prima facie Case — Lack of urgency)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-826/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - Regime of taxation on companies enabling undertakings that are tax resident in Spain to amortise the financial goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies that are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for a stay of execution - Prima facie Case - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 127/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 final of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.35550 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain and concerning the regime for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 8 January 2015 delivered in Case T-826/14 R is cancelled.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-295/13: Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/53

         Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-295/13)
   2013/C 207/88
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer, G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10, corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/178/10 and corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/179/10, published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 82 A, of 21 March 2013.

               —

               As a consequence, annul the corrected notices.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-275/13, Italian Republic v Commission.


title: Case T-205/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Career evaluation report — 2001/2002 evaluation period — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission
   (Case T-205/04) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Career evaluation report - 2001/2002 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 8/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Ianniello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   On the one hand, annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 February 2004 rejecting his complaint and, on the other, payment of compensation for the non-material suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-340/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/57

         Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-340/07)
   (2007/C 269/104)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 172 588,62 which constitute unpaid eligible costs incurred by the applicant in the framework of contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the symbolic amount of EUR 1 000 corresponding to the damage suffered at its fame and goodwill;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application, pursuant to Articles 238 EC and 235 EC, seeks compensation for damages caused by the decision of the Commission of 16 May 2003 to terminate the contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 signed with the Commission, concerning the project ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (‘EEBO’) to be carried out in the framework of the multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society (2001-2005) and involving M. Fischer and M. Marthinsen in the implementation of the project as external consultants.
   In support of its claims the applicant argues that the contracting authority (DG INFSO) decision to terminate the contract contains evident errors of assessment resulting in failure to fulfil its contractual obligations. Moreover, it is submitted that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principles of good administration and transparency and that on several occasions, specific Commission agents failed to eliminate alleged conflicts of interest. In light of the above, the applicant claims to be entitled to compensation for the services rendered as well as to eligible costs incurred in the framework of the execution of the contract including interest from the date these amounts became due.


title: Case C-428/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Union syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier ministre, Ministère du Travail, des Relations sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la Ville, Ministère de la Santé et des Sports (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Articles 1, 3 and 17 — Scope — Casual and seasonal activity of persons employed under an educational commitment contract — Restriction on the working time of such staff in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum — National legislation not providing, for such staff, a minimum daily rest period — Derogations from Article 17 — Conditions — Ensuring an equivalent period of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases, appropriate protection)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/20

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Union syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier ministre, Ministère du Travail, des Relations sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la Ville, Ministère de la Santé et des Sports
   (Case C-428/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Articles 1, 3 and 17 - Scope - Casual and seasonal activity of persons employed under an ‘educational commitment contract’ - Restriction on the working time of such staff in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum - National legislation not providing, for such staff, a minimum daily rest period - Derogations from Article 17 - Conditions - Ensuring an equivalent period of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases, appropriate protection)
   2010/C 346/32
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Union syndicale Solidaires Isère

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère du Travail, des Relations sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la Ville, Ministère de la Santé et des Sports

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Article 17(1),(2) and (3)(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same directive — Casual and seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts — Compatibility with the directive of national rules restricting the working time of such persons in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum but not ensuring minimum daily rest periods — Concepts of ‘equivalent periods of compensatory rest’ and ‘appropriate protection to be afforded to the workers concerned’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Persons employed under contracts such as the educational commitment contracts at issue in the main proceedings, carrying out casual and seasonal activities in holiday and leisure centres, and completing a maximum of 80 working days per annum, are within the scope of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time;

               2.

               Persons employed under contracts such as the educational commitment contracts at issue in the main proceedings, carrying out casual and seasonal activities at holiday and leisure centres, fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 17(3)(b) and/or 17(3)(c) of Directive 2003/88.
               National legislation which restricts the activity carried out under such contracts to 80 days per annum does not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 17(2) of that directive which govern the application of that derogation, to the effect that the workers concerned are to be afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases where the granting of such periods is not possible for objective reasons, appropriate protection.

      (1)  OJ 2010 C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-529/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 12 — Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State — Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State — Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 16 to 18 — Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State — Legal residence — Residence based on Article 12 above)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-529/11) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State - Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State - Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 16 to 18 - Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State - Legal residence - Residence based on Article 12 above)
   2013/C 225/20
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Intervening party: AIRE Centre

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — Interpretation of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ 1968 L 257, p. 2) — Right of residence, following her divorce from a national of another Member State having exercised his right to free movement, of a national of a non-Member State responsible for care of her child, the latter being more than 21 years old and studying in the host Member State — Meaning of ‘parent who is primary carer for a child’ — Criteria for assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The parent of a child who has attained the age of majority and who has obtained access to education on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, may continue to have a derived right of residence under that article if that child remains in need of the presence and care of that parent in order to be able to continue and to complete his or her education, which it is for the referring court to assess, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before it;

               2.

               Periods of residence in a host Member State which are completed by family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State solely on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, as amended by Directive 2004/38, where the conditions laid down for entitlement to a right of residence under that directive are not satisfied, may not be taken into consideration for the purposes of acquisition by those family members of a right of permanent residence under that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-9/07: Action brought on 9 January 2007 — Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Designs)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/35

         Action brought on 9 January 2007 — Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Designs)
   (Case T-9/07)
   (2007/C 56/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic, SA (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, USA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal at OHIM of 27 October 2006 in Case R 1001/2005-3;

               —

               order the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and the intervening party, Pepsico Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the Court of First Instance, including those relating to the procedure before the Third Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for ‘promotional item[s] for games’ — Community Design No 74463-1

      Proprietor of the Community design: PepsiCo, Inc.

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for ‘metal plate[s] for games’ — Community Design No 53186-1

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community design

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Invalidity Division's decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the registered Community design

      Pleas in law: The contested Community Design No 74463-1 lacks novelty and individual character compared to the registered Community Design No 53186-1, which has claimed priority of an earlier Spanish design.


title: Case C-82/03: Action brought on 25 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 101/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Medico-technical laboratory, radiology and orthoptic services             In 2000 the Commission received a complaint from an
may not be exercised on an independent basis in Austria. For              economic operator alleging wrongful implementation in Itali-
the exercise of those three professions, an employment                    an law of Council Directive 89/655/EEC ( 1) of 30 November
relationship is necessary. A member of those professional                 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
categories from another Member State, where the exercise of               for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second
those professions on an independent basis is entirely normal,             individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
therefore has no opportunity to carry on his or her profession            Directive 89/391/EEC).
in Austria as an independent. That national measure therefore
undoubtedly constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of estab-
lishment and the freedom to provide services.                             Despite being contacted by the Commission on numerous
                                                                          occasions, the Italian authorities have failed to provide any
                                                                          information on the complainant’s allegations. That failure
                                                                          to communicate information repeatedly requested by the
The Commission finds the Republic of Austria’s argument to                Commission constitutes a failure to fulfil the obligation,
justify that measure unconvincing. It has not been sufficiently           imposed on Member States by Article 10 EC, to offer genuine
demonstrated that salaried employment relationships in the                cooperation to the Community institutions.
paramedical sector concerned are in themselves sufficient to
ensure, or at least better able to ensure, a higher level of health.
The prohibition under Austrian law of the exercise of those               (1 ) OJ L 393 of 30.12.1989, p. 13.
three professions on an independent basis constitutes an
unjustified restriction and therefore an infringement of the
freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services
laid down by Articles 43 and 49 EC.
                                                                          Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Action brought on 25 February 2003 by the Commission                                                (Case C-84/03)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2003/C 101/42)
                          (Case C-82/03)
                         (2003/C 101/41)                                  An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by G. Valero Jordana and K. Wiedner, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
                                                                          1.    declare that, by failing correctly to incorporate into
                                                                                national law Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public
                                                                                supply contracts ( 1) and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of
                                                                                14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures
a)    find that the Italian Republic, by failing to offer the                   for the award of public works contracts ( 2) and, in
      Commission any genuine cooperation in a case concern-                     particular:
      ing the health and safety of workers, has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 10 EC, and
                                                                                —     by excluding from the scope of Royal Legislative
                                                                                Decree 2/2000 of 16 June approving the revised
b)    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                    and codified Public Contracts Law by, specifically,


title: Case C-434/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 5 November 2009 — Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 5 November 2009 — Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-434/09)
   2010/C 11/30
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shirley McCarthy

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a person of dual Irish and United Kingdom nationality who has resided in the United Kingdom for her entire life a ‘beneficiary’ within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Directive’)?

               2.

               Has such a person ‘resided legally’ within the host Member State for the purpose of Article 16 of the Directive in circumstances where she was unable to satisfy the requirements of Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
   OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Case T-655/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — FSL and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market in Italy, Greece and Portugal — Coordination in the fixing of prices — Admissibility of evidence — Rights of defence — Misuse of powers — Evidence of the infringement — Calculation of the fine)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — FSL and Others v Commission
   (Case T-655/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Italy, Greece and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence - Rights of defence - Misuse of powers - Evidence of the infringement - Calculation of the fine))
   (2015/C 262/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: FSL Holdings (Antwerp, Belgium); Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp); and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, C. Verdonck, B. Van Vooren and B. Gielen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, primarily, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 7273 final of 12 October 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] (Case COMP/39482 — Exotic Fruit (Bananas)), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 7273 final of 12 October 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] (Case COMP/39482 — Exotic Fruit (Bananas)) in so far as it refers to the period from 11 August 2004 to 19 January 2005, to the extent that it concerns FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA;

               2)

               Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2011) 7273 final in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA at EUR 8 9 19  000;

               3)

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy in Article 2 of Decision C(2011) 7273 final at EUR 6 6 89  000;

               4)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5)

               Orders FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys and Pacific Fruit Company Italy to bear a third of their own costs and half of the European Commission’s costs;

               6)

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs and two thirds of the costs of FSL Holdings, of Firma Léon Van Parys and of Pacific Fruit Company Italy.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.