title: Case C-151/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 January 2005 in F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 January 2005 in F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-151/05)
   (2005/C 143/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 13 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Article 70 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code apply where it is necessary to establish whether a product in respect of which recovery of export duty is sought is of marketable quality?

               2.

               Is confirmation of sound and fair marketable quality within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (2) of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, given in a national application for payment, information for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97 in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97?

      (1)  OJ L 302, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 351, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 December 1996 in Case T-521/93: Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Action for damages)

text:
8 . 2 . 97           I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 40/ 15
from the register of Case C-134/96 : Commission of the                removal from the register of Case C-l 79/96 : Commission
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
                                                                      Luxembourg.
(') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-l 52/96 (')                           Removal from the register of C-243/96 f 1 )
                             97/C 40/35 )                                                         ( 97/C 40/37 )
                                                                      By order of 19 November 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 12 September 1996 the President of the Court              of Justice of the Communities ordered the removal from
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                the register of Case C-243/96 : Commission of the
removal from the register of Case C-l 52/96 : Commission              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg .                                                          (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-265/96 f 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/38 )
            Removal from the register of C-l 79/96 (')                By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
                             97/C 40/36 )                             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case C-265/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                      of 11 December 1996                             Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
                                                                      Marie-Adelaide v. European Community, represented by 1 .
in Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of               Council of the European Union (Agents : Jean-Paul Jacque,
the European Union and Commission of the European                     Arthur Brautigam , Jürgen Huber and Anna Lo Monaco )
                          Communities C )                             and 2 . Commission of the European Communities
 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                       ( Agents : Peter Gilsdorf and Ulrich Wölker ), supported by
           Import arrangements — Action for damages)                  the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Gautier
                                                                       Mignot) and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                            ( 97/C 40/39 )                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially S. Lucinda Hudson,
                                                                       then Lindsey Nicoll ) — application for an order requiring
                 (Language of the case: German)                        the European Community, represented by the Council and
                                                                       the Commission , to pay compensation for damage alleged
                                                                       to have been incurred as a result of the adoption of
 In Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG, established at Bremen                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
 ( Germany), Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co .                  1993 on the common organization of the market in
 GmbH, established at Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-                     bananas ( OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Court
 Companie GmbH, established at Hamburg ( Germany ),                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
 Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft mbH & Co . KG,                     K. Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P.
 established at Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH ,                      Lindh , J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 established at Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport                    Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 , in
 Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established at Hamburg and                which it :
 Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established at Hamburg,
 represented by Erik A. Undritz and Gerrit Schohe,                      1 . dismisses the application;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/ 16           LIN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 2 . 97
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay all              the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
     the costs incurred in this case, including the costs               Stutensee ( Germany ), and Vittorino Tebaldi , an official of
     relating to the proceedings for interim relief;                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Marxzell-Burbach ( Germany ), represented by Jean-Noel
3.   orders the interveners to hear their own costs .                   Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
                                                                        Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') 01 No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1
                                                                        Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by
                                                                        Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Cretien ,
                                                                        Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano ) and Federal
                                                                        Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Sabine Maass ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 11 December 1996                               pay slips issued for the period from 1 July 1 994 to
                                                                        31 December 1994 pursuant to Council Regulation
in Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV v.                          ( ECSC, EC , Euratom ) No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994
        Commission of the European Communities (')                      adjusting, with effect from I July 1994 , the remuneration
(Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty — Proof of                   and pensions of officials and other servants of the
the infringement — Fine — Statement of the reasons for                  European Communities and the weightings applied thereto
                            the decision )                              ( OJ No L 335 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p. 1 ), inasmuch as those pay
                                                                        slips apply retroactively a specific weighting for Karlsruhe
                            ( 97/C 40/40 )                              fixed at 99,8 — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                        Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV, formerly                    11 December 1996 , in which it:
Van Megen Tennis BV, established in Eindhoven
( Netherlands ), represented by Antonius Wouters Willems,
Advocaat, Eindhoven , with an address for service in                     1.   dismisses the action ;
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue
Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        2 . orders     the    applicants ,     the   defendant      and       the
( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Wouter                         interveners to hear their own costs .
Wils ) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/987/EC of 21 December 1994 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/                 (') O No C ; 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
 32.948 — IV/34.590 : Tretorn and others ) ( OJ No L 378 ,
 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 45 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
 Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the
 Chamber, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 11 December 1996 , in which it:
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 . dismisses the application;                                                                of 12 December 1996
                                                                         in    Case   T-16/91       RV:     Rendo    NV   and      Others       v.
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                      Commission of the European Communities (')
 (>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                          (Competition — Implied rejection of a complaint —
                                                                         Statement of reasons — Appeal — Referral of a case back
                                                                          to the Court of First Instance — Continuation of the
                                                                                proceedings — Costs)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/42 )
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 11 December 1996                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 in   Case    T-177/95 :      Patrick  Barraux   and    Others   v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      In Case T-16/91 RV: Rendo NV, established at Hoogeveen
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV,
                  (Officials — Specific weighting)
                                                                          established     at      Almelo       ( Netherlands ),     Regionaal
                              ( 97/C 40/41 )                              Energiebedrijf Salland NV, established at Deventer
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue Aldringen v.
  In Case T-177/95 : Patrick Barraux, an official of the                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Berend
  Commission of the European Communities, residing at                     Jan Drijber ), supported by Samenverkende Elecktriciteits
  Karlsruhe ( Germany ), Klaus Kammerichs, an official of                 produktiebedrijven          NV,     established       at    Arnhem


title: Case T-484/07: Action brought on 22 December 2007 — Romania v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/57

         Action brought on 22 December 2007 — Romania v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-484/07)
   (2008/C 51/103)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Romania (represented by: Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, Agent, Emilia Gane and Dumitra Mereuță, Advisers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision (C(2007) 5253 final) of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission certificates for the period 2008-2012, notified by Romania pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission rejected in part the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission certificates for the period 2008-2012, notified by Romania pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC (1), reducing by 19,754248 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent per year the overall number of certificates that will be allocated for the Community scheme and establishing that the average overall annual volume covered by the emission quotas that may be allocated will not exceed 75,944352 million tonnes.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits as follows:

               —

               the Commission has failed to comply with Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, in that it has established, with binding force, on the basis of a method of its own, the overall volume of the emission quotas that can be allocated by Romania, thus encroaching upon the latter's sphere of competence;

               —

               the Commission has applied a method wholly lacking in transparency for the purposes of determining the overall volumes of the emission quotas, thus infringing not only Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, but also Article 9(3) thereof;

               —

               in applying its own system, the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination;

               —

               the Commission has failed to comply with Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 253 EC, in that it has failed to give adequate reasons for decision C(2007) 5253 final.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-464/03: Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/24                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
Action brought on 30 October 2003 by the Commission                       Industry) of 24 October 2003, received at the Court Registry
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       on 4 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van
                         (Case C-459/03)                                  Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following
                                                                          questions:
                          (2004/C 7/39)
                                                                          1.    Is a court or tribunal as referred to in the third paragraph
                                                                                of Article 234 EC also required under that provision to
                                                                                submit to the Court of Justice a question such as that set
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       out below, concerning the validity of provisions of a
Justice of the European Communities on 30 October 2003 by                       regulation where the Court of Justice has ruled that
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                         analogous provisions of another, comparable regulation
by P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, acting as agents, with an                    are invalid, or may it refrain from applying the first-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                              mentioned provisions in view of the clear analogies
                                                                                between them and the provisions declared invalid?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          2.    Are Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
—     declare that, by instituting dispute settlement proceedings               No 1423/95 (1) of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed
      against the United Kingdom under the UN Convention                        implementing rules for the import of products in the
      for the Law of the Sea concerning the MOX Plant located                   sugar sector other than molasses invalid inasmuch as
      at Sellafield, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations               they provide that the additional duty referred to therein
      under Article 10 and 292 EC and Article 192 and 193                       is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the
      Euratom;                                                                  representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regu-
                                                                                lation (EC) No 1423/95 and that that duty is established
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
                                                                                concerned only if the importer so requests?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying
                                                                              down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in
The Commission submits that Ireland has instituted the                        the sugar sector other than molasses (OJ L 141 of 24.06.1995,
                                                                              p. 16).
proceedings against the United Kingdom without taking due
account of the fact that the European Community is a party to
the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It has
further failed to appreciate that the provisions of UNCLOS
invoked by it, as well as a number of other Community acts
invoked by Ireland, are provisions of Community law. By
submitting the dispute to a Tribunal outside the Community
legal order, Ireland has violated the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Justice enshrined in Articles 292 EC and 193                 Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Kingdom of
Euratom. Furthermore, Ireland has also violated the duty of               Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
cooperation incumbent on it under Articles 10 EC and 192                                                  ties
Euratom.
                                                                                (Case C-464/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/41)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of
24 October 2003 in the case of Gaston Schul Douane-                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van Landbouw,                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                  Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit                              Communities on 4 November 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                          represented by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-461/03)
                          (2004/C 7/40)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003 (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          12 August 2003 laying down implementing rules on the
European Communities by order of the College van Beroep                         Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                      Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; and
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 7/25
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                 On the basis of the Council Regulation 2913/92 (‘the Customs
                                                                        Code’), in particular Articles 29, 32 and 33 thereof, and the
                                                                        case law of the Court, where, at the time of customs clearance,
                                                                        an importer inadvertently declares as the price paid or payable
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         for the goods an amount inclusive of buying commission and
                                                                        inadvertently fails to show the buying commission separately
                                                                        on the import declaration from the price actually paid or
1. Breach of essential procedural requirements as a result of
                                                                        payable but, after the goods have been released into free
infringement of the Council’s language rules: the Spanish
                                                                        circulation, shows to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities
delegation did not receive an invitation in Spanish to the
                                                                        that the declared price paid or payable for the goods included
meeting of the Management Committee for Fisheries and
                                                                        bona fide buying commission, which could have been properly
Aquaculture at which the proposed regulation was discussed.
                                                                        deducted at importation, and makes a claim for repayment of
Furthermore, during that meeting the Commission put forward
                                                                        the duty paid on the buying commission within three years of
a substantive amendment to its proposal but only in English.
                                                                        the date on which amount of customs duty was communicated:
2. Breach of the hierarchy of norms: Article 7(1) of                    1.     Could the bona fide buying commission be dutiable as
Regulation No 1438/2003 infringes the provisions of:                           part of the price actually paid or payable for the goods
                                                                               under Article 29 of the Customs Code?
—     Article 13 of Regulation No 2371/2002 which does not
      require the Member State to guarantee that the tonnage
      capacity does not exceed certain limits; and                      2.     If the answer to question 1 is negative, could the bona
                                                                               fide buying commission be deductible from the declared
—     Article 11 of Regulation No 2371/2002 which requires                     transaction value bearing in mind the provisions of
      that, when establishing the balance of entries and exits                 Articles 32.3 and 33 of the Customs Code?
      the corresponding capacity of the fleet is not to be taken
      into account.
                                                                        3.     In such circumstances are the customs authorities obliged
                                                                               under the Customs Code, and in particular Article 78.3
3. Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations: the                     thereof, to accept the amendment to the price paid or
retrospective nature of the provision could be detrimental to                  payable for the imported goods and thereby reduced
the interested of the persons concerned.                                       customs value?
4. Arbitrariness: the provision lays down as the period for             4.     Is the importer therefore entitled under the Customs
exits the range of 2000 to 2002 for no technical reason                        Code, and in particular Article 236 thereof, to a refund
whatever.                                                                      of the duty paid on the buying commission?
(1) OJ L 204 of 13.08.2003, p. 21.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                 Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-
court dated 29 October 2003, in the case of Overland                    mission of the European Communities against the
Footwear Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and                                               Hellenic Republic
                             Excise
                        (Case C-468/03)                                                          (Case C-474/03)
                         (2004/C 7/42)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/43)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 29 October 2003,
which was received at the Court Registry on 6 November                  An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Overland                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Nov-
Footwear Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on                 ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
the following questions:                                                ties, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-147/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Weber's Wine World Handels-GmbH, Ernestine Rathgeber, Karl Schlosser, Beta-Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien (Indirect taxation — Duty on sales of alcoholic beverages — Incompatibility with Community law — Recovery of duty)

text:
C 275/10                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            national court to ascertain, on the basis of a comprehensive
                                                                                assessment of national law, whether it is actually the case that
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                         only claimants who bring proceedings based on domestic
                                                                                constitutional law may rely on the ‘Anlaßfallwirkung’ and that
                                                                                the rules governing repayment of charges held to be incompatible
                        of 2 October 2003
                                                                                with domestic constitutional law are more favourable than those
                                                                                applicable to actions relating to taxes held to be contrary to
in Case C-147/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              Community law.
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Weber’s Wine World
Handels-GmbH, Ernestine Rathgeber, Karl Schlosser,                           4.   The principle of effectiveness precludes national legislation or a
Beta-Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission                                    national administrative practice which makes the exercise of the
                               Wien (1)                                           rights conferred by the Community legal order impossible in
                                                                                practice or excessively difficult by establishing a presumption of
(Indirect taxation — Duty on sales of alcoholic beverages —                       unjust enrichment on the sole ground that the duty was passed
 Incompatibility with Community law — Recovery of duty)                           on to third parties.
                         (2003/C 275/16)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-147/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                                          of 30 September 2003
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Weber’s Wine World Handels-GmbH, Ernestine Rathgeber,
Karl Schlosser, Beta-Leasing GmbH and Abgabenberufungs-                      in Case C-167/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
kommission Wien, on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC                from the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam): Kamer van
Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and paragraph 3 of the operative                  Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, v Inspire Art
part of the judgment of the Court in Case C-437/97 EKW and                                                    Ltd (1)
Wein & Co [2000] ECR I-1157, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the                      (Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and                       one Member State and carrying on its activities in another
S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F.                    Member State — Application of the company law of the
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              Member State of establishment intended to protect the
judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                    interests of others)
1.   The adoption by a Member State of rules, such as the Wiener                                       (2003/C 275/17)
     Abgabenordnung, fixing more restrictive procedural rules on
     recovery of sums levied but not due, in order to forestall the
     possible effects of a judgment of the Court holding that                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     Community law precludes the maintenance of a national duty,
     is contrary to Community law and, more particularly, to                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) only in so far                              in the European Court Reports)
     as it is aimed specifically at that duty, a point which falls to be
     determined by the national court.
2.   The rules of Community law on the recovery of sums levied but           In Case C-167/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
     not due are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude             EC by the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam (Netherlands) for a
     national rules which refuse — a point which falls to be                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     determined by the national court — repayment of a charge                court between Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor
     incompatible with Community law on the sole ground that the             Amsterdam, and Inspire Art Ltd, on the interpretation of
     charge was passed on to third parties, without requiring that           Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC, the Court, composed of:
     the degree of unjust enrichment that repayment of the charge            G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
     would entail for the taxable person be established.                     (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
                                                                             dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
3.   The principle of equivalence precludes national rules which lay         Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
     down less favourable procedural rules for claims for repayment          Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber,
     of a charge which has been levied though not due from the               Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
     aspect of Community law than those applicable to similar                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
     actions based on certain provisions of domestic law. It is for the      which it has ruled:


title: Case C-132/15 P: Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v European Commission, Aalberts Industries NV

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v European Commission, Aalberts Industries NV
   (Case C-132/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 078/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The Vice-President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case T-20/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/22

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission

   (Case T-20/07 P)
   (2007/C 69/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by K. Hermann and D. Martin, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem, Belgium)
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by Mrs Chatziioannidou;

               —

               order that the parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings and of those before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the judgment of 14 November 2006, the setting-aside of which is claimed in the present appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the Commission's decisions of 30 November 2004 and 20 February 2005 calculating the applicant's years of pensionable service following the transfer to the Community scheme of the actuarial equivalent of the pension rights she had acquired in Greece.
   In support of the application to set aside the judgment, the Commission raises a single ground of appeal alleging infringement of Regulations No 1103/97 (1) and No 974/98 (2) and of the GIP of Article 11 of Annex VIII (3). The Commission submits that the premiss on which the CST's reasoning is entirely based, arises from an erroneous interpretation of the scope of Regulation No 1103/97. The Commission maintains that, contrary to the CST's finding, the purpose of the regulation in question is the maintenance of contractual commitments undertaken by private parties and not those undertaken by public bodies. It argues also that, in any case, that statement is irrelevant to these proceedings on the ground that the Commission had undertaken no commitment in respect of Mrs Chatziioannidou at the date of the entry into effect of the euro and, therefore, the principle of continuity of contracts stated in Article 3 of Regulation No 1103/97 was not, in law, applicable to this case. On the contrary, Regulation No 974/98, above all Article 14 thereof, should, in the Commission's submission, be applied in this case and the GIP should be read in the light thereof. Consequently, in the case of a transfer, after the introduction of the euro, of pension rights acquired in Greece, a country which had adopted the euro, the provision of Article 4(4) of the GIP laying down the detailed rules for the conversion into euros of amounts transferred in a currency other than the euro, is not applicable. The Commission also claims that, contrary to the CST's decision, because of the sharing of the powers under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations between the Commission and the national authorities, Mrs Chatziioannidou could not complain of the Commission's method of calculating the amount of the actuarial equivalent transferred to the Commission by the Greek authorities because they alone had the power to select an appropriate method, the Greek authorities having already transferred to the Communities' account an amount already denominated in euros.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the euro (OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the euro (OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1).

      (3)  General Implementing Provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case F-120/12: Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/36

         Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-120/12)
   2012/C 379/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annul the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 March 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the defendant on 28 November 2011 by which it informed the applicant that her fixed-term contract expiring on 29 February 2012 would not be renewed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between (i) the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and (ii) the amount of remuneration, fees, unemployment benefits and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 March 2012 by way of replacement for the remuneration she was receiving as a temporary agent;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 1999 in Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Temporary staff - Grading - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials - Erroneous notice - Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
C 265/10                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.9.1999
4. The Commission is required to pay that sum within a period of            2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
     two months from the date on which the present judgment is                   incurred by the applicant.
     notified to it, failing which the amount payable shall be increased
     by default interest at the rate of 5 % per annum with effect from      3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
     the date of expiry of that period.
5. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 8 of 11.1.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                             of 6 July 1999
                            of 22 April 1999                                in Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)                             (Officials — Temporary staff — Grading — Article 31(2)
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Duty to have regard for the
                                                                            welfare and interests of officials — Erroneous notice —
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to include a
                                                                                Protection of legitimate expectations)
recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of
substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —
Rejection by the Commission — Action for annulment —                                                   (1999/C 265/18)
                              Admissibility)
                             (1999/C 265/17)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass, a member of the temporary
                      (Language of the case: English)                       staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of tht
In Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company, a company with its                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
seat in Saint-Louis, Missouri (USA), represented initially by               office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
Clive Stanbrook QC and Robert MacLean, Solicitor, and                       Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
subsequently by Mr Stanbrook and by Debra Holland, Barris-                  Currall) — application, first, for annulment of the decisions of
ter, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              the Commission of 22 July 1996 and 19 March 1997 inas-
of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaide v Commission                    much as they respectively classify the applicant in grade A 5,
of the European Communities (Agents: initially Richard Wain-                step 3, and refuse to classify the applicant in grade A 4
wright and Fernando Castillo de la Torre, subsequently                      pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials
M. Wainwright), supported by the French Republic (Agents:                   of the European Communities, and, second, for damages —
Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Frédéric Pascal, and Régine Loosli-                the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Surrans, and subsequently by Ms Rispal-Bellanger, Ms Loosli-                J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Surrans and Christina Vasak) — application for the annulment                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
of Commission Decision C(97) 148 final of 14 January 1997,                  1999, in which it:
rejecting the application by Monsanto Europe SA/NV for the
inclusion of Sometribove, a recombinant bovine somatotro-                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks an
phin (BST), in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC)                              order of the Court of First Instance requiring the defendant to
No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying clown a Community                              classify the applicant in a fixed grade and step.
procedurc for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin                2. Dismisses the application for annulment.
(OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and                        3. Dismisses the application for damages.
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 Apri1 1999, in which it:                         4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three
                                                                                quarters of the costs of the applicant.
1. Annuls Commission Decision C(97) 148 final of 14 January
     1997, rejecting the application by Monsanto Europe SA/NV for
     the inclusion of Sometribove in Annex II to Council Regulation         (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
     (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
     procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
     veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.


title: Notice of vacancy — CJ 01/01 — Director of Translation

text:
7.3.2001          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 74 A/1
                                                               III
                                                            (Notices)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                            OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                            NOTICE OF VACANCY — CJ 01/01
                                                       (2001/C 74 A/01)
         The post of Director of Translation (career bracket A 2) at the Court of Justice of the European
         Communities in Luxembourg will soon fall vacant. It will be filled in accordance with Article 29(2) of the
         Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.
         DESCRIPTION OF THE POST
         The Translation Directorate is at present faced with a very substantial increase in its staff, whose numbers
         are likely to continue to rise in the years to come. The number of lawyer-linguist posts attached to this
         department (about 300, the total staff of the department being 450) has risen by more than two-thirds
         over the last seven years and it is envisaged that it will increase substantially in the coming years, in
         particular because of the enlargement of the European Union by nine new Member States. The Director
         of Translation must therefore have the ability to direct a very large and rapidly growing unit. He will need
         to have a very good sense of organisation and the ability to bring about structural changes in the
         department. In this respect, he will have to be able to make, with a view to the forthcoming accessions,
         proposals relating to the organisation of the Directorate. He will also need to have a good sense of human
         relations enabling him to persuade and motivate his collaborators, to take an active interest in and
         coordinate the activities of the 11 Heads of the Language Divisions of the Directorate and to cooperate
         effectively with the other Directors of the Institution.
         In addition, in order to cope with the ever-increasing workload, which mere increases in staff will not
         suffice to absorb, every effort must be made to improve still further the high level of productivity already
         attained by the department. This will entail in particular a better organisation and generalised use of new
         technology. The Director of Translation will therefore have to show a great interest in information
         technology and be capable of mastering the computing tools and applications available at the Court. He
         will be permanently concerned to improve and harmonise working methods within the Directorate.
         Furthermore, the reforms that will be carried out for the better organisation and modernisation of the
         department must be accompanied by an unfailing concern to adapt to the needs of judicial work and to
         maintain the high quality of translations. The person appointed to the post will therefore need to have a
         thorough knowledge of the problems of translating legal texts and be capable, in the performance of his
         tasks, of taking account of the way in which the Court is organised and functions.
         Finally, in view of the context in which he will be working, the Director of Translation must have
         completed a full course of legal studies, evidenced by a degree or diploma of university level, have a
         thorough knowledge of one of the official languages of the Community, a very good knowledge of
         another official language and a satisfactory knowledge of a third official language. For reasons relating to
         the service, he must have a good knowledge of French.
 ---pagebreak--- C 74 A/2          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 7.3.2001
         SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS
         Candidates for this post are invited to send their application in writing to the Registrar of the Court of
         Justice, Plateau du Kirchberg, L-2925 Luxembourg, by 6 April 2001 at the latest. The application must be
         accompanied by a detailed curriculum vitae and any other relevant documents. Candidates must also
         attach to their application a document of five pages at the most setting out their plan for running the
         department and indicating what, in their opinion, qualifies them for the post to be filled.


title: Case T-66/01: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for soda ash in the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC — Commission’s power to impose a fine or sanction — Reasonable time — Essential procedural requirements — Res judicata — Existence of the dominant position — Abuse of the dominant position — Effect on trade between Member States — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission
   (Case T-66/01) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for soda ash in the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Commission’s power to impose a fine or sanction - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Res judicata - Existence of the dominant position - Abuse of the dominant position - Effect on trade between Member States - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)
   2010/C 221/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, D. Anderson QC and S. Lee, Barrister, and by S. Turner, S. Berwick and R. Coles, Solicitors, and then by D. Vaughan QC, S. Berwick, Solicitor, S. Lee and S. Ford, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and P. Oliver, Agents, and by J. Flynn QC and C. West, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 33) or, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) in so far as it states that Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd infringed Article 82 EC in 1983;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Imperial Chemical Industries in Article 2 of Decision 2003/7 at EUR 8 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Imperial Chemical Industries to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of those incurred by the European Commission;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Imperial Chemical Industries.

      (1)  OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.


title: Case C-119/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Biuro podróży ‘Partner’ Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Biuro podróży ‘Partner’ Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
   (Case C-119/15)
   (2015/C 198/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Biuro podróży ‘Partner’ Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of Articles 6(1) and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (2), can the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms which have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and which have been entered in the register of unlawful standard contract terms be regarded, in relation to another undertaking which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in the register of unlawful standard contract terms, as an unlawful act which, under national law, constitutes a practice which harms the collective interests of consumers and for that reason forms the basis for imposing a fine in national administrative proceedings?

               2.

               In the light of the third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is a court of second instance, against the judgment of which on appeal it is possible to bring an appeal on a point of law, as provided for in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, or is the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court), which has jurisdiction to hear appeals on a point of law, such a court?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30.


title: Case C-190/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland), lodged on 23 April 2012 — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland), lodged on 23 April 2012 — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy
   (Case C-190/12)
   2012/C 209/05
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 56(1) EC (now Article 63 TFEU) apply to an assessment of the permissibility of the application by a Member State of provisions of national law which draw a distinction between the legal situation of taxable persons in such a way that they grant, as part of a general tax exemption, an exemption from flat-rate corporation tax on dividends received by investment funds established in a Member State of the European Union but do not provide for such an exemption for an investment fund which is resident for tax purposes in the USA?

               2.

               Can the difference between the treatment of funds established in a non-member country and that of funds established in a Member State of the European Union, as provided for in national law with regard to the exemption relating to corporation tax, be regarded as legally justified in the light of Article 58(1)(a) EC, in conjunction with Article 58(3) EC (now Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 65(3) TFEU)?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 August 2000 in Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen against the Court of Auditors (Officials — Request for retirement on grounds of invalidity — Absence of positive medical developments — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 316/23
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs                                of 7 August 2000
      incurred by the defendant.
                                                                          in Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen against the Court
                                                                                of Auditors (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                 (Officials — Request for retirement on grounds of invalidity
                                                                          — Absence of positive medical developments — Action
                                                                          manifestly unfounded in law — Action manifestly inadmis-
                                                                                sible)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen, temporary official of
                                                                          the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
                      of 20 September 2000                                at Nittel (Germany), represented by Alain Lorang, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at his Chambers, 51 Rue Albert 1er against Court of Auditors
in Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer v the European Parlia-                   of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghel-
                               ment (1)                                   ram and P. Giusta) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to retire him on
(Officials — Appointment on promotion — Grade LA 3 —                      ground of total permanent invalidity — the Court of First
           Consideration of the comparative merits)                       Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                          on 7 August 2000 the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2000/C 316/43)
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and
                                                                                as manifestly unfounded in law.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.
In Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer, official of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 C 281.
Parliament, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Gestion
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’Anna) — application for
the annulment of the decision of 7 January 1999, first, in so
far as it appoints Ms. Dhyvert to the post of Depute Head of
Division of the German Translation Division at the European                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Parliament and, secondly, in so far as it rejects the applicant’s
candidature for the post — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                       of 11 July 2000
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2000, in               in Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
which it:                                                                 Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1.    dismisses the application;                                          (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1804/1999 — Temporary derogation in favour of exist-
2.    orders each party to bear its own costs.                                          ing trade marks — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/45)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
                                                                          gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,


title: Case C-611/11 P: Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — ara AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allrounder SARL (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Earlier national word mark A — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/4

         Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — ara AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allrounder SARL
   (Case C-611/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs - Earlier national word mark A - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
   2013/C 101/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: ara AG (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Allrounder SARL (represented by: N. Boespflug, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 in Case T-174/10 ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two triangular motifs), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara and Allrounder — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Opposition by the holder of the national word mark ‘A’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders ara AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-388/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 1999/42/EC)

text:
29.11.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 289/9
1.    Declares that by transposing only part of Article 1 of Directive      1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
      EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-                     1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      organisms and Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 90/                     of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition
      219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically                of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered
      modified micro-organisms in the version in Directive 98/81,                 by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                      and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of
      obligations under Article 2 of Directive 98/81;                             qualifications, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                       of 16 October 2003
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
in Case C-388/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                                in Case C-423/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
               to transpose Directive 1999/42/EC)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Environment — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31/EC)
                         (2003/C 289/16)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/17)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-388/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan,
assisted by A. Colins): Application for a declaration that, by              In Case C-423/02, Commission of the European Communities
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                   (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/42/EC of                 Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond):
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June 1999                   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications              laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
in respect of the professional activities covered by the Direc-             comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999
tives on liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-                  on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) or, in any event,
plementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifi-              by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the
cations (OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77), or in any event by failing to               United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
notify those provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed               failed to fulfil fully its obligations under Article 18 of
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second           that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                       P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporte-
Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;                   ur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 Octo-
judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                                   ber 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-32/16: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/25

         Order of the General Court of 25 October 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-32/16) (1)

   (2016/C 475/37)
   Language of the case: Czech
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-263/10: Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/52

         Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-263/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/83
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 April 2010 declaring the suspension of the interim payment application submitted by the Kingdom of Spain on 17 December 2009 on the grounds stated in Section I of the legal reasoning set out in the originating application;

               —

               uphold the claim that the European Commission should pay interest on account of the delay in the actual payment of the interim sums applied for and improperly suspended;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is directed against the decision of the Commission to interrupt the payment deadline of the interim payment application submitted by the Kingdom of Spain on 17 December 2009. That interim payment application, for a total amount of EUR 2 717 227,26, relates to the Operational Programme for Community Assistance from the European Social Fund in the framework of the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective for the Autonomous Community of the Balearics (CCI 2007ES052PO005).
   In support of its claims the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 91(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, since the Commission, without any report from a national or Community audit body to suggest the existence of a significant deficiency in the functioning of the management and control systems, and in the absence of any such deficiency, by means of the contested decision interrupted the payment deadline of the interim payment application submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

               —

               Infringement of the control strategy approved by the Commission, in as much as the Commission interrupted the payment deadline for that interim payment on the ground that the absence of systems audits constitutes a significant delay in the implementation of the strategy, when that strategy enabled the Kingdom of Spain to submit those systems audits until 30 June 2010.

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the Commission claims that the Kingdom of Spain failed to produce the systems audits in advance of the timetable agreed with the Commission itself, a requirement which therefore the Spanish authorities could not have foreseen.

               —

               Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, since the national authorities acted in reliance on auditing timetables which the Commission had approved in the strategy, timetables which were being met, without any indication from the Commission at any time that this represented any deficiency in the management and control system.

               —

               Infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the measure adopted by the Commission is disproportionate and contrary to efficient financial management, and there are other less onerous legal instruments capable of attaining the same objective.

               —

               Lastly, the Kingdom of Spain claims default interest under Article 87(2) of Regulation 1083/2006, Article 83 of Regulation 1605/2002 (2) and Article 106(5) of Commission Regulation 2342/2002. (3)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  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: Case F-80/11: Action brought on 3 August 2011 — ZZ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/30

         Action brought on 3 August 2011 — ZZ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
   (Case F-80/11)
   2011/C 319/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis. E. Marechal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract on disciplinary grounds and for payment of a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage claimed to have been suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude the contracts of 11 October 2010 to terminate the applicant’s contract early, with two months’ notice, expiring on 11 December 2010;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs and to pay the sum of EUR 300 000 by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-58/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heinsberg): Proceedings against Josef Corsten (Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC — Skilled services in the building trade — National rules requiring foreign skilled trade undertakings to be entered on the trades register — Proportionality)

text:
C 335/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
—     the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods         EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 54 EC and 55 EC) and Council
      of both full-time and part-time training in specialised medicine       Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed
      is binding only in respect of the medical specialties which are        provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of
      common to all the Member States or to two or more of them              activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
      and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of Council                 processing industries falling within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
      Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual             (Industry and small craft industries) (OJ, English Special Edition
      recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal     1963-1964, p. 148) — the Court, composed of:
      qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the       G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to        D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
      provide services;                                                      (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
—     that obligation is binding only if the conditions for full-time        General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      training set out in point 1 of the annex to Directive 75/363,          has given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has
      as amended by Directive 82/76, or those for part-time training,        ruled:
      set out in point 2 of the annex to Directive 75/363, as
      amended by Directive 82/76, are complied with by the trainee           Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
      medical specialists;                                                   and Article 4 of Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964
—     that obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise in so        laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in
      far as it requires, for a medical specialist to be able to benefit     respect of activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
      from the system of mutual recognition established by Directive         processing industries failing within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
      75/362, that his training be full-time or part-time and                (Industry and small craft industries) preclude rules of a Member State
      remunerated;                                                           which make the carrying out on its territory of skilled trade work by
                                                                             providers of services established in other Member States subject to an
—     that obligation in itself does not, however, enable the national       authorisation procedure which is likely to delay or complicate exercise
      court to determine which body is liable to pay the appropriate         of the right to freedom to provide services, where examination of the
      remuneration or the level thereof.                                     conditions governing access to the activities concerned has been carried
                                                                             out and it has been established that those conditions are satisfied.
The national court is required, however, when it applies provisions of       Furthermore, any requirement of entry on the trades register of the
national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret        host Member State, assuming it was justified, should neither give rise
them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of       to additional administrative expense nor entail compulsory payment
that directive.                                                              of subscriptions to the chamber of trades.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.                                                   (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 3 October 2000
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
in Case C-58/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             in Case C-303/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Amtsgericht Heinsberg): Proceedings against Josef
                                                                             from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
                              Corsten (1)
                                                                             Valenciana, Spain): Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia
(Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC —                        Pública (Simap) v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de
Skilled services in the building trade — National rules                                         la Generalidad Valenciana (1)
requiring foreign skilled trade undertakings to be entered on
              the trades register — Proportionality)                         (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of
                                                                             workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope
                           (2000/C 335/30)                                   — Doctors in primary health care teams — Average period
                                                                             of work — Inclusion of time on call — Night workers and
                                                                                shift workers)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/31)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-58/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Amtsgericht                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Local Court) Heinsberg, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                                    in the European Court Reports)
the proceedings pending before that court against Josef Corsten
— on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                 In Case C-303/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
after amendment, Article 49 EC), Articles 60, 65 and 66 of the               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Superior


title: Case T-712/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/16

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)
   (Case T-712/13)
   2014/C 61/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 given in Case R 609/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REHABILITATE’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 10 834 802

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 4 CTMR


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht St Pölten (Austria) by order of that court of 2 September 1998 in the case of D. (a minor) v. W. on appeal by the Österreichischer Bundesschatz (Case C-384/98)

text:
C 397/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   19.12.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
St Pölten (Austria) by order of that court of 2 September              Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
1998 in the case of D. (a minor) v. W. on appeal by the                concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
                Österreichischer Bundesschatz                          working time (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                       (Case C-384/98)                                 Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                        (98/C 397/38)
                                                                   2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht
(Regional Court) St Pölten (Austria) of 2 September 1998,          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D. (a minor)
v. W. on appeal by the Österreichischer Bundesschatz on            Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
the followqing questions:                                          directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
1. Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/
                                                                   down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
     388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                   expired on 23 November 1996 without the Italian
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                   Republic having brought into force the necessary
     taxes (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                   provisions in order to comply with the directive referred
     exemption from turnover tax laid down by that
                                                                   to in the Commission's application.
     provision extends also to medical services which a
     doctor in his capacity as a court expert provides on
     the instructions of the Court, in particular by               (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
     anthropologico-genetic investigations in the context of
     a paternity dispute?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does that
     provision of the directive preclude application of a
     provision of national law which entitles (inter alia)
     doctors under certain conditions effectively to waive         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
     the said exemption from turnover tax?                         der Nederlanden by order of that court of 23 October
                                                                   1998 in the case of Coreck Maritime GmbH against (1)
                                                                   Handelsveem B.V., (2) V. Berg and Sons Ltd, (3) Man
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                     Producten Rotterdam B.V. and (4) The Peoples Insurance
                                                                                Company of China
                                                                                (Case C-387/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/40)
Action brought on 26 October 1998 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
                       (Case C-386/98)
                                                                   Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                        (98/C 397/39)                              23 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                   29 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Coreck Maritime GmbH against (1) Handelsveem B.V.,
                                                                   (2) V. Berg and Sons Ltd, (3) Man Producten Rotterdam
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                B.V. and (4) The Peoples Insurance Company of China on
                                                                   the following questions:
26 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and
Antonio Aresu, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos          1. Must the first sentence of Article 17 of the Brussels
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Convention (in particular, the words have agreed'),
Kirchberg.                                                             read in conjunction with the case-law of the Court of
                                                                       Justice according to which the purpose of Article 17
                                                                       is to ensure that the parties have actually consented to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            such a clause, which derogates from the ordinary
                                                                       jurisdiction rules laid down in Articles 2, 5 and 6 of
                                                                       the Convention, and that their consent is clearly and
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force              precisely demonstrated' (emphasis added by the Hoge
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Raad), be interpreted as meaning: