title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2002 in Case C-304/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm) (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Application for "area" aid — Penalties — Limitation period)

text:
C 7/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            11.1.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 26 November 2002                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-275/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 19 November 2002
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): European Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
              munities, v First NV, Franex NV (1)
                                                                            in Case C-304/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Ministry of
(Articles 235 EC, 240 EC and second paragraph of 288 EC                     Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: W.H. Strawson
— Action for damages — Expert report ordered as an                                   (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm) ( 1)
interlocutory measure by a national court as against the
European Community — Exclusive jurisdiction of the Com-
                          munity Courts)
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration
                                                                            and control system for certain Community aid schemes —
                                                                            Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Application
                           (2003/C 7/02)                                            for ‘area’ aid — Penalties — Limitation period)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                       (2003/C 7/03)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: English)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-304/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-275/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
EC by the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) for a preliminary
                                                                            Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
European Community, represented by the Commission of the
                                                                            and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
European Communities, and First NV, Franex NV, on the
                                                                            W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm), on
interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 228 EC, the
                                                                            the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
                                                                            rules for applying the integrated administration and control
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
                                                                            system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
                                                                            p. 36), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                            chet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                            F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,
on 26 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                            trar, has given a judgment on 19 November 2002, in which it
                                                                            has ruled:
Article 235 EC, in conjunction with Article 240 EC and the second
paragraph of Article 288 EC, preclude a national court from
ordering, with respect to one of the institutions of the Community,
proceedings for an expert report whose purpose is to determine the          On a proper construction of the first and second paragraphs of
role of that institution in events alleged to have caused damage,           Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
for the purposes of subsequent proceedings against the European             23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
Community to establish its non-contractual liability.                       integrated administration and control system for certain Community
                                                                            aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/
                                                                            95 of 6 July 1995, where the competent authority discovers that an
                                                                            applicant for ‘area’ aid has made an incorrect declaration, neither
( 1) OJ C 257 of 9.9.2000.                                                  intentionally nor as the result of serious negligence, which has
                                                                            entailed overdeclaration of the area eligible for aid and that the same
                                                                            mistake was made in the years prior to that in which the mistake was
                                                                            discovered, thus leading to overdeclaration of the area eligible for aid
                                                                            in each of those years, that authority is required, subject to observance
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 7/3
of the limitation periods laid down in Article 3(1) of Council              Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/EEC
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on                  of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field, which
the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, to         defines managing portfolios of investments, precludes national
reduce the area actually determined in order to calculate the aid           legislation which departs from that definition by not requiring, for
payable in respect of the previous years.                                   the purposes of the implementation of that directive, that the
                                                                            management of portfolios of investments should be ‘on a discriminat-
                                                                            ory, client-by-client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation
                                                                            investors’. However, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from
No 3887/92, the reductions referred to in the first and second              extending by national legislation the applicability of the provisions of
paragraphs of that article are not to be applied if the farmer shows
                                                                            that directive to operations not covered by it, provided that it is made
that his determination of the area was accurately based on information
                                                                            clear that the national legislation in question does not constitute the
recognised by the competent authority. It is for the national court to      transposition of the directive, but arises from the independent will of
establish whether or not that has been shown in the case in the main
                                                                            the legislature.
proceedings.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 21 November 2002
in Case C-356/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 21 November 2002
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana):
Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale
              per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) ( 1)                       in Case C-436/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Regeringsrätten): X, Y v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Directive 93/22/EEC — Investment services in the securities
          field — Managing portfolios of investments)                       (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                                                                            Income tax — Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue
                                                                            of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding)
                            (2003/C 7/04)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2003/C 7/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: Swedish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-356/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri and
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob),                   In Case C-436/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
intervener: Banca Fideuram SpA, on the interpretation of                    EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/               the proceedings pending before that court between X, Y and
EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities                 Riksskatteverket, on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46
field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von                        C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                 and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 No-
a judgment on 21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:                      vember 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2000 in Joined Cases T-74/97 Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH v Council of the European Union and T-75/97 Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Extension of an anti-dumping duty — Exemption — Bicycle parts — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 355/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            9.12.2000
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission to bear their
                                                                                own costs in relation to the procedure in Case T-74/97.
                       of 26 September 2000
                                                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
in Joined Cases T-74/97 Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik
GmbH v Council of the European Union and T-75/97
Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Extension of an anti-dumping duty — Exemption — Bicycle
      parts — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)                                           of 27 September 2000
                                                                          in Case T-184/97: BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the
                           (2000/C 355/44)                                                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aid — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing
                                                                          proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Article 92(3) of the
                    (Language of the case: German)                        EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) —
                                                                          Directive 92/81/EEC — Meaning of ‘pilot projects for the
                                                                          technological development of more environmentally-friendly
In Joined Cases T-74/97 Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik                                                products’)
GmbH, established in Fulda (Germany), represented by
W.A. Rehmann and U. Zinsmeister, of the Brussels Bar, with                                          (2000/C 355/45)
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
and Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against the Council of the
European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, A. Tanca, S. Marquardt                                   (Language of the case: English)
and H.-J. Rabe), supported by the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) and by the                In Case T-184/97: BP Chemicals Ltd, established in London
French Republic (Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger) and T-75/97                  (United Kingdom), represented by J. Flynn, Barrister, and
Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Com-                    J.A. Rodriguez, Solicitor, with an address for service in
mission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz,               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue
N. Khan and M. Hilf) — application for, in Case T-74/97, the              Goethe, against Commission of the European Communities
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January               (Agent: N. Khan), supported by the French Republic (Agents:
1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by                K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for the
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the                annulment of Commission Decision SG(97) D/3266 of 9 April
People’s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts            1997 concerning an aid scheme for biofuels in France — the
from the People’s Republic of China, and levying the extended             Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC)                     sition), composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi,
No 703/96 (OJ 1997 L 16, p. 55), and, in Case T-75/97, for                M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 of                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of                  27 September 2000, in which it:
imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s
Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation                1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought against Com-
(EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council                       mission Decision SG(97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 concerning
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 17) — the                         an aid scheme for biofuels in France in so far as that decision
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-                         relates to measures applicable to the esters sector;
sition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber,
V. Tiili, J. Azizi, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,         2.    Annuls the contested decision to the extent to which it relates
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                to the measures concerning the ETBE sector;
on 26 September 2000, in which it:
                                                                          3.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;
1.    Dismisses the actions in Cases T-74/97 and T-75/97 as               4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay
      inadmissible;                                                             those incurred by the applicant as a result of its intervention.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the Council’s        (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
      costs in relation to Case T-74/97, and the Commission’s costs
      incurred in connection with Case T-75/97;


title: Case C-81/00: Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 176/4                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.6.2000
— the order infringes the fundamental right of the appellant             Pleas in law and main arguments
     to effective judicial protection as a general principle of
     Community law and the very system of remedies estab-
     lished in the Treaties. The appellant does not plead the            Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (2):
     system of remedies established in the Treaty in the present
     case, but rather that the contested order failed to make any
     analysis as to the effectiveness of the fundamental right           — According to the Kingdom of Spain, the contested pro-
     relied upon in its action. Such failure to take this into                vision violates the principle of relative stability, and that
     account and the decision in the order that the duty to                   issue was not resolved in the judgment delivered on
     safeguard the effectiveness of judicial protection is a matter           5 October 1999 in Case C-179/95 Spain v Council.
     for the judicial systems of the Member States amounts to a
     breach of the system of remedies laid down in the former
     Article 173 of the Treaty. By misapplying the principle of          — The Kingdom of Spain considers that Article 9 of Regu-
     the duty to cooperate in good faith incumbent on the                     lation No 3760/92 is not applicable to a measure such as
     Member States, the order transfers to the latter the duty to             that contested, for the following reasons:
     apply a fundamental right in the context of Article 173 of
     the Treaty, fails to take account of the fact that the                   (1) the exchanges of quotas authorised by Article 9 of
     appellant claimed at first instance that its fundamental                      Regulation No 3760/92 must accord with the prin-
     rights had been infringed by the contested measure, fails                     ciples of the common fisheries policy and of Com-
     to mention that the remaining rights relied upon by the                       munity legislation, which include the principle of
     appellant may only be protected before the Community                          relative stability;
     judicature and, finally, does not state that the duty of the
     Community judicature is to ascertain whether Community
     acts are valid in accordance with fundamental rights.                    (2) in accordance with the abovementioned Article 9,
                                                                                exchanges of fishing availabilities are a matter falling
                                                                                within the competence of the Member States, which
                                                                                are required only to notify the Commission of them; in
                                                                                the present case, however, it is the Council that has
                                                                                decided that 3 000 tonnes may be fished by Portugal
                                                                                in waters of the Bay of Biscay and that they may be
                                                                                subsequently ceded to France;
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Kingdom of                              (3) although the legal basis of Council Regulation No
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                              685/95 on the management of the fishing effort
                                                                                relating to certain Community fishing areas and
                                                                                resources is clearly Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now
                           (Case C-81/00)                                          Article 37 EC), that does not mean that the Council
                                                                                may use that regulation in order to disregard the
                                                                                principles established in the basic fisheries regulation
                          (2000/C 176/06)                                          (that is to say, Regulation No 3760/92), in particular
                                                                                the principle of relative stability.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             — The contested provision, which has no scientific basis
ties on 7 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented                     whatever, gives rise to a de facto alteration to the TAC
by Rosario Silva, de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with an address               fixed for the year 2000 in respect of anchovies, reducing it
for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6                         to 16 000 tonnes in ICES zone VIII from a figure of
Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                                                   19 000. In so doing, it infringes Regulation No 3760/92,
                                                                              since, instead of achieving the objective of rational and
                                                                              responsible exploitation of the available resources, it results
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   in over-fishing of a species such as the anchovy in ICES
                                                                              zone VIII.
— annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
     (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zone: IX, X,
     CECAF 34.1.1’ contained in Annex I D to Council
     Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 (1) of 17 December 1999                (1) OJ L 341 of 31.12.1999, p. 1.
     fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated            (2) Establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
     conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,           (OJ L 389 of 31.12.1992, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 92 of
     applicable in Community waters and, for Community                       16.4.1993, p. 51).
     vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required
     and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.


title: Case T-114/10: Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Germany v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/40

         Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-114/10)
   2010/C 134/69
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, Agents, and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare null and void Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the aid granted by the ERDF for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1999 to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
   In support of its claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law.
   As its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the conditions for a financial correction under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) are not met. In the applicant’s view, that does not entitle the Commission to make financial corrections for administrative errors or perceived deficiencies in the administrative and monitoring systems. Further, it submits that even if administrative errors or perceived deficiencies in the administrative and monitoring systems under Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 were found, there should be no question of a financial correction. Firstly, ‘irregularities’, as alleged here by the Commission, can be corrected by financial corrections only if they have or have had a negative effect on the European Union’s budget. In the view of the applicant, the measures objected to by the Commission have not had such an effect. Secondly, the applicant submits that in the case of a series of projects also objected to in this matter, there has been no breach of Community law.
   The second plea in law alleges that the Commission was not entitled under Regulation No 4253/88 to apply flat-rate and extrapolated financial corrections. In addition, the applicant submits that the clear wording of Article 24 of that regulation relates to concrete situations and quantifiable amounts.
   In its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality and claims that an extrapolation across States, on the basis of which one Member State is required to accept responsibility for the errors of another Member State, is not permitted.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of T-155/96

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 318/35
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   payment, that is he suffers from an illness which prevents
                                                                      him from performing his normal duties and his invalidity
                                                                      is the result of a mental illness arising from an
This action has been brought against the implied rejection            occupational disease .
of the complaint submitted against the implied rejection of
the request for an invalidity pension .
In support of this application the applicant claims to fulfil
the conditions laid down by the applicable legislation
( Article 78 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 13 and 16                   Removal from the register of T-231/95 ( ')
of Annex VIII thereto ) for entitlement to the said pension:                                       ( 97/C 318/68 )
he suffers total permanent invalidity brought about while
completing periods of pensionable service which prevents
him from pursuing any employment. The medical check                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
up prior to entering the service did not reveal that the
applicant was suffering from any illness or complaint.                By order of 4 July 1997 the President of Second Chamber
                                                                      of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant would observe that the granting of the                  Case T-231 /95 : SIC, Sociedade Independente de
pension is subject to the prior declaration that the                  Comunica^ao SA v. Commission of the European
acceptance of the resignation tendered by the applicant is            Communities .
null and void or non-existent. In this regard the
application refers to the arguments put forward in Case
T-27/97 C v. Commission ( M.                                          (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
(') OJ C 181 , 15 . 6 . 1997, p . 15 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of T- 163/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/69
Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
          Commission of the European Communities                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          ( Case T-250/97)
                                                                      By order of 8 July 1997 the President of the Court of First
                            ( 97/C 318/67)                            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case T-163/97 R:
                                                                      Netherlands Antilles v. Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Communities .
An action against the Commission of the European                      (') OJ C 212, 12 . 7. 1997.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at 2, Calle
Conde de la Cimera, Madrid .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-155/96 (')
The applicant claims that the Court should award him an                                            ( 97/C 318/70 )
invalidity payment following the completion of the
appropriate procedure .                                                              (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   By order of 9 July 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
This action has been brought against the implied rejection            removal from the register of Case T-155/96 : City of Mainz
of the complaint submitted against the implied rejection of           ( Federal Republic of Germany ) v. Commission of the
the request for an invalidity payment as provided for in              European Communities .
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .
                                                                      (') OJ C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
The applicant claims to fulfil all the requirements laid
down by law for entitlement to the abovementioned


title: Case T-471/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — Éditions Jacob v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Concentration of enterprises — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Annulment by the General Court of the initial decision on the Commission’s approval of the purchaser of the sold assets — Application for suspension of operation of the decision on the further approval of the same purchaser — No urgency — Weighing of interests)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/52

      Order of the President of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
      (Case T-471/11 R)
      (Application for interim measures - Competition - Concentration of enterprises - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Annulment by the General Court of the initial decision on the Commission’s approval of the purchaser of the sold assets - Application for suspension of operation of the decision on the further approval of the same purchaser - No urgency - Weighing of interests)
      (2012/C 25/103)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SA (Paris, France)) (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, O. Beynet and S. Noë, agents)

         Re:

      Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 3503 of 13 May 2011 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as the purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP)),

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-456/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 21 November 2002 in the proceedings between Michel Trojani and Le Centre Public d'Aide Sociale de Bruxelles

text:
22.2.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/13
(3) Is Directive 90/605/EEC compatible with the general                     of certain alleged irregularities in its conduct. According to the
      principle of equality in so far as it places at a disadvantage        applicant, the Customs Service merely has jurisdiction to
      those Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable                 record in its statements facts gathered during the course of its
      partner is a private limited company as compared with                 investigations. It is not competent to evaluate those facts and
      Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable partner               the Commission ought to have conducted its own investigation
      is a natural person, even though creditors of a GmbH &                of the matter. The applicant says that, in finding the Customs
      Co. KG (a limited partnership in which the unlimited                  Service’s statement to be sufficient proof, the Court of First
      partner is a private company) are better protected by the             Instance erred in law and its judgment is thereby vitiated.
      duty of disclosure imposed on private limited companies
      than are creditors of a Kommanditgesellschaft whose
      personally liable partner, as a natural person, is not under
      any duties of disclosure?                                             The applicant maintains that the judgment is also vitiated by
                                                                            the fact that the Court failed to give consideration to the
                                                                            subjective element as a decisive factor in determining whether
( 1) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                         a decision to withdraw a certain grant was permissible. The
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
                                                                            Court should have distinguished between the possible case of a
                                                                            culpable, but not fraudulent, breach of the financial conditions,
                                                                            such as would justify no more than the reduction or suspension
                                                                            of the grant, and a fraudulent breach of the financial conditions,
                                                                            entitling the Commission to withdraw the grant in its entirety.
Appeal brought on 13 December 2002 by Sgaravatti
Mediterranea S.r.l. against the judgment delivered on
                                                                            Lastly, the applicant maintains that the Court’s finding that
26 September 2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                            there is no possibility of a breach of the principle of ne bis in
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                            idem is questionable, given that the sanction imposed by means
T-199/99 between Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the
                                                                            of the injunction issued in Italy came after the Community
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            decision. According to the applicant, when the Commission
                                                                            decided to withdraw the grant which was due it knew or ought
                        (Case C-455/02 P)                                   to have known that an administrative sanction would be
                                                                            handed down in Italy.
                         (2003/C 44/25)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 September
2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-199/99 between
Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 13 December 2002
by Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l., a company with registered
offices in Capoterra (CA), Italy, represented by Massimo Merola             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
and Piero A.M. Ferrari, Lawyers.                                            Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 21 No-
                                                                            vember 2002 in the proceedings between Michel Trojani
                                                                                and Le Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered
      on 26 September 2002 in Case T-199/99;                                                        (Case C-456/02)
—     annul Commission Decision C(1999) 1502 of 4 June
      1990 or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the                                        (2003/C 44/26)
      Court of First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of
      the EC Statute of the Court of Justice;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of
      both sets of proceedings.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 21 November 2002,
                                                                            received at the Court Registry on 18 December 2002, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Michel Trojani
The applicant takes issue with the improper use of a statement              and Le Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles on the
made by the Customs Service as evidence, sufficient in itself,              following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
1.  Can a citizen of the Union in the factual circumstances                    Must the host country comply with any other rules in
    described in this order                                                    order to avoid rendering meaningless the right of resi-
                                                                               dence, such as a duty to assess the situation in the light
                                                                               of the fact that the application for the minimex or for
    —     who has temporary leave to remain,                                   social assistance is temporary, or taking into account the
                                                                               principle of proportionality (would the burden on the
                                                                               State in question be unreasonable)?
    —     does not have sufficient resources,
                                                                        (1 ) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
    —     carries out work for the hostel where he lives to the
                                                                             on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
          extent of some 30 hours a week in the context of a                 L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
          personal reinsertion scheme, and                              (2 ) Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of
                                                                             residence (OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 26).
    —     receives in return benefits in kind which cover his
          living expenses at the hostel itself
    claim a right of residence:
    —     as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC or            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
          Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 ( 1),                   cassation du Grand-duché de Luxembourg by judgment
                                                                        of that Court of 14 November 2002 in the case of 1. Willy
                                                                        Gerekens and 2. Association agricole PROCOLA against
    —     or as a worker pursuing an activity as a self-
                                                                                State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
          employed person within the meaning of Article 43
          EC,
                                                                                (Case C-459/02)
    —     or as a person providing a service, in view of the
          tasks he performs at the hostel, or as a person for                                      (2003/C 44/27)
          whom the services are intended, in view of the
          benefits in kind granted to him by that hostel, within
          the meaning of Article 49 EC,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation
    —     or merely because he participates in a scheme with
          a view to his social rehabilitation and access to             du Grand-duché de Luxembourg (Court of Cassation of the
                                                                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) of 14 November 2002, received
          employment?
                                                                        at the Court Registry on 19 December 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the case of 1. Willy Gerekens and 2. Association
2.  Should the answer be in the negative, can he rely directly          agricole PROCOLA against State of the Grand Duchy of
    on Article 18 EC which guarantees the right to freedom              Luxembourg on the following question:
    of movement and to reside in the territory of another
    Member State of the Union, merely in his capacity as a
    European citizen?                                                   Do the general principles of Community law of legal certainty
                                                                        and non-retroactivity mean that, for the application of Com-
    What then becomes of the requirements laid down                     munity legislation establishing production quotas of the type
    by Directive 90/364/EEC ( 2) and/or the ‘limitations and            introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of
    conditions’ laid down in the EC Treaty, and in particular           31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the
    the minimum resources requirement which, if it were                 common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
    applied on entry to the host country, would deprive him             (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
    of the substantive right of residence itself?                       84 of 31 March 1984 adopting down general rules for the
                                                                        application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ
    If, conversely, the right of residence arises automatically         1984 L 90, p. 13), a Member State is precluded from adopting,
    on the basis of citizenship of the Union, could the host            in place of initial rules held by the Court of Justice of the
    State subsequently refuse an application for the minimex            European Communities to be discriminatory, new rules which
    or for social assistance (that is to say, non-contributory          make it possible to penalise retroactively production in excess
    benefits), curtailing his right of residence on the ground          of production quotas introduced after the entry into force of
    that he does not have sufficient resources, when it grants          the Community regulations but under the aegis of the national
    those benefits to nationals of the host country provided            rules which have been replaced?
    they comply with requirements to which Belgian
    nationals are also subject (proof of their availability for
    work, proof that they are in need)?


title: Case C-446/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction — Refusal — Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services — Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/5

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság
   (Case C-446/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal - Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services - Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks))
   (2017/C 063/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Signum Alfa Sped Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

      Operative part of the order

   The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national practice under which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax which is payable or paid in respect of services supplied to it on the ground that the invoices relating to those services lack verisimilitude since the issuer of those invoices could not be the real supplier of those services, unless it is established, in the light of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks not required of it, that that taxable person knew or should have known that those services were involved in value added tax fraud, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 1997 in Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and C-324/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de Cassation): criminal proceedings against Jacques Pistre and Others (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Domestic legislation on the use of the description 'mountain' for agricultural products and foodstuffs)

text:
28 . 6 . 97           I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 24 April 1997                                                         of 7 May 1997
in Case C-39/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                in Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ): Koninklijke                 C-324/94 ( references for a preliminary ruling from the
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                          French Cour de Cassation): criminal proceedings against
Boekhandels v. Free Record Shop BV, Free Record Shop                                       Jacques Pistre and Others (')
                            Holding NV (')
                                                                         (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of
 (Article 85 of the EC Treaty — Article 5 of Council                     geographical indications and designations of origin for
Regulation No 17 — Provisional validity of agreements                    agricultural products and foodstuffs — Articles 30 and 36
pre-dating Regulation No 17 and notified to the                          of the EC Treaty — Domestic legislation on the use of the
 Commission — Provisional validity of agreements                         description 'mountain ' for agricultural products and
                    amended after notification)                                                        foodstuffs)
                             ( 97/C 199/ 11 )                                                       ( 97/C 199/ 12 )
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-39/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177               In Joined Cases C-321 /94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                       C-324/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
( District Court) Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in                 EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court of
the proceedings pending before that court between                        Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen                  proceedings pending before that court against Jacques
des Boekhandels and Free Record Shop BV, Free Record                     Pistre ( C-321 /94 ), Michele Barthes ( C-322/94 ), Yves
Shop Holding NV — on the interpretation of Article 85 of                 Milhau ( C-323/94 ) and Didier Oberti ( C-324/94 ) — on
the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation No 17 of                         the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation
6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing                           ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special                   geographical indications and designations of origin for
Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended by Council                         agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7.
Regulation No 59 of 3 July 1962 ( OJ, English Special                    1992, p. 1 ) and of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty —
Edition 1959-1962 , p. 249 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),               the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( President of the                de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann
Chamber), L. Sevon, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward                          ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M.
( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                       Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for                 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 April 1997, in                 judgment on 7 May 1997, in which it has ruled:
which it has ruled :
                                                                         1 . Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081 /92 of 14 July
1 . The provisional validity of a restrictive agreement                        1992 on the protection of geographical indications
      which was concluded before the entry into force of                      and designations of origin for agricultural products
      Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First                      and foodstuffs does not preclude application of
      Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the                       domestic rules, such as those laid down by Article 34
      Treaty, as amended by Council Regulation No 59 of                       of Law No 85—30 of 9 January 1985 and Decree
     3 July 1 962 and which was notified to the                               No 88—194 of 26 February 1988, which lay down
      Commission before 1 November 1962 expires only                          the conditions governing the use of the description
      when the Commission has taken either a positive or a                    'mountain ' in relation to agricultural products and
      negative decision on that agreement.                                    foodstuffs.
2 . A duly notified restrictive agreement concluded before               2 . Article 30 of the EC Treaty precludes application of
      the entry into force of Regulation No 1 7, as amended                   domestic rules, such as those laid down by Article 34
      by Regulation No 59, enjoys provisional validity only                   of Law 85—30 and Decree No 88—194, which
      if its terms remain unchanged or, in the event of                       restrict use of the description 'mountain ' to products
     amendments, if these do not have the effect of                           manufactured on national territory and prepared from
      reinforcing or extending its restrictive effects.                       domestic raw materials.
(') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Case C-196/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/6

         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-196/12)
   2012/C 184/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s Proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant submits that the Council has departed from the Commission’s Proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials under Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, despite the fact that it is apparent from the mandatory terms of that article that the method for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council no discretion. The abovementioned article obliges the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal before 31 December of the current year. In the submission of the applicant, the Council is not empowered to depart from that obligation on the ground that it is of the view that the Commission ought to have submitted to it a proposal under Article 10 of Annex XI. In any event, the fundamental conditions for Article 10 to apply were not met in 2011 as is, moreover, apparent from two economic reports submitted by the Commission to the Council at the request of the Council. By adopting Decision 2011/866/EU (1) itself under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, the Council thus infringed the required institutional conditions.
   The Commission also complains that the Council has refused to adjust the correction coefficients which must be applied to the remuneration and pensions according to the different places of work or residence of the persons concerned. In the view of the applicant, it cannot be disputed that the ‘decision’ of the Council is entirely silent on that point, the reasoning underlying it referring exclusively to the ‘exception clause’ of Article 10 of Annex XI. The Council’s attitude must therefore be regarded as an unlawful refusal to act.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2011 L 341, p. 54).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 May 1996 in Case C-206/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Brennet AG v. Vittorio Paletta (Social security - Recognition of incapacity for work)

text:
22 . 6 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/ 15
     on the national courts. However, the national courts                   C-45/90 Paletta v. Brennet [1992] ECR 1-3423, does not
     may still ask the Court ofJustice to rule on their validity            imply that employers are barred from adducing evidence
     or interpretation.                                                     to support, where appropriate, a finding by the national
                                                                            court of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the
(') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 , OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .               worker concerned in that, although he may claim to
                                                                            have become incapacitated for work, such incapacity
                                                                            having been certified in accordance with Article 18 of
                                                                            that Regulation, he was not sick at all.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 2 May 1996
in Case C-206/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Brennet AG v. Vittorio
                              Paletta ( 1 )
   (Social security — Recognition of incapacity for work)                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 180/29 )                                                      ( Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 2 May 1996
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       in Case C-234/95 : the Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic ( a )
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 92/50/EEC)
In Case C-206/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                       ( 96/C 180/30 )
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
Labour Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                             (Language of the case: French)
pending before that court between Brennet AG and Vittorio
Paletta — on the interpretation of Article 22 ( 1 ) of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
application of social security schemes to employed persons                       published in the European Court Reports)
and their families moving within the Community ( OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 ), as amended by          In Case C-234/95 : Commission of the European
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ             Communities ( Agent : Hendrik van Lier ) v . French Republic
No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 ), and on the interpretation and validity       ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Philippe Martinet ) —
of Article 18 ( 1 ) to ( 5 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )             application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( OJ, English               order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p . 159 ) — the Court, composed of         18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, J. -P.            the award of public service contracts ( OJ No L 209, 1992 ,
Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.             p . 1 ) and, in the alternative , by failing to inform the
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                 Commission of such measures forthwith, the French
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and            Republic vhas failed to fulfil its obligations under that
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.                     Directive and, in particular, Article 44 thereof — the Court
Cosmas , Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl , Principal                     ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May             of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ),
 1996, the operative part of which is as follows:                      L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola ,
                                                                       Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
I. Article 22 (1 ) (a) (ii) of Council Regulation (EEC)                2 May 1996 , in which it:
     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial
     security schemes to employed persons and their families           1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
     moving within the Community, as amended by Council                     period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, is to be                  provisions needed in order to comply with Council
     interpreted as covering national legislation under which               Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     an employee is entitled, on becoming incapacitated for                 coordination of procedures for the award of public
     work, to continued payment of his wages for a certain                  service contracts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
     period, even where those wages are not payable until a                 its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that Directive.
     given period has elapsed since the incapacity
     commenced.
                                                                       2 . Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2 . The interpretation of Article 18 (1 ) to (5) of Council
                                                                       (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing
     the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC)
     No 1408/71 , given by the Court in its judgment in Case


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 February 1998 in Joined Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95: DIR International Film Srl and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Decision of the European Film Distribution Office (EFDO) - Instructions given by the Commission - Decisions imputable to the Commission - Action programme to promote the development of the European audiovisual industry (MEDIA) - Financing of film distribution - Criteria for assessment - Statement of reasons)

text:
C 113/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 11.4.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 17 February 1998                                                of 19 February 1998
in Case T-107/96: Pantochim SA v. Commission of the                  in Joined Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95: DIR International
                   European Communities (1)                          Film Srl and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(State aid Ð Action for failure to act Ð No need to
adjudicate Ð Action for damages Ð Claim for an order                 (Action for annulment Ð Decision of the European Film
requiring a Member State to modify the conditions for the            Distribution Office (EFDO) Ð Instructions given by the
grant of aid already accorded Ð Factual circumstances Ð              Commission Ð Decisions imputable to the Commission Ð
              Commission's lack of competence)                       Action programme to promote the development of the
                                                                     European audiovisual industry (MEDIA) Ð Financing of
                         (98/C 113/29)
                                                                     film distribution Ð Criteria for assessment Ð Statement
                                                                                of reasons)
                                                                                (98/C 113/30)
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-107/96: Pantochim SA, established at Feluy                                (Language of the case: English)
(Belgium), represented by Jacques Bourgeois, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
GeÂrard Rozet and HerveÂ Lehman), supported by French                In Joined Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95: DIR International
Republic (Agents: initially Catherine de Salins and                  Film Srl, established in Rome, Nostradamus Enterprises
FreÂdeÂric Pascal, subsequently Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and          Ltd, established in London, Union PN Srl, established in
FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð application for (i) a declaration that          Rome, United International Pictures BV, established in
the Commission unlawfully failed to act in not deciding,             Amsterdam, United International Pictures AB, established
pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Treaty, that France should          in Stockholm, United International Pictures APS,
modify the conditions for the grant of aid which it had              established in Copenhagen, United International Pictures
accorded for biofuels and for (ii) an award of                       A/S, established in Oslo, United International Pictures
compensation for the damage allegedly caused to the                  EPE, established in Athens, United International Pictures
applicant by that failure to act Ð the Court of First                OY, established in Helsinki, and United International
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                Pictures y Cía SRC, established in Madrid, represented by
President, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki, and J. D.             Michel Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in              Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of
which it:                                                            the European Communities (Agents: Berend Jan Drijber
                                                                     and Peter Oliver) Ð applications for the annulment of,
                                                                     first, the letters from the European Film Distribution
                                                                     Office (EFDO) to the applicants of 12 September 1994
1. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the               adjourning the procedure in relation to applications for
     application for a declaration of failure to act,                loans under the action programme to promote the
                                                                     development of the European audiovisual industry
                                                                     (MEDIA) for the distribution of two films and/or of the
                                                                     measure whereby the Commission instructed EFDO to
2. dismisses the action for damages as unfounded,                    take those decisions; and, secondly, the measure of
                                                                     5 December 1994 whereby EFDO rejected the applications
                                                                     for loans and/or the measure whereby the Commission
                                                                     instructed EFDO to adopt that measure Ð the Court of
3. orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those            First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
     relating to the interim proceedings,                            President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J.
                                                                     Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:
4. orders the Government of the French Republic to bear
     its own costs.
                                                                     1. rules that there is no need to adjudicate on the
                                                                          application in Case T-369/94,
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                     2. dismisses the application in Case T-85/95,
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 113/13
3. orders the applicants to bear all the costs.                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 February 1998
(1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994 and OJ C 137, 3.6.1995.                    in Case T-142/96: Anne-Marie Toller v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Opinion of the Invalidity Committee Ð
                                                                    Incompetence Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
                                                                    Application for re-examination Ð Material new factor Ð
                                                                                Time-bar Ð Admissibility)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   (98/C 113/32)
                     of 19 February 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-42/96: Eyckeler & Malt AG v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    In Case T-142/96: Anne-Marie Toller, a former official of
(Action for annulment Ð Importation of high-quality beef            the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
(Hilton beef') Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 Ð                     Brussels, represented by Benoît Lombart, Eric Boigelot and
Article 13 Ð Commission decision refusing remission of              Daniel Crucq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
import duties Ð Rights of the defence Ð Manifest error              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                        of assessment)                              rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Christine
                         (98/C 113/31)                              Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of the
                                                                    Commission's decision refusing to re-examine the decision
                                                                    of 1 July 1993 removing the applicant from her post for
               (Language of the case: German)                       incompetence Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.
                                                                    Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
In Case T-42/96: Eyckeler & Malt AG, established in                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February
                                                                    1998, in which it:
Hilden (Germany), represented by Dietrich Ehle and
Volker Schiller, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   1. dismisses the application as inadmissible,
Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents:
initially Stephanie Ridley, subsequently John Collins and           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
David Anderson) against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) Ð application for              (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 December
1995 (K(95) 3391 final) addressed to the Federal Republic
of Germany and concerning an application for remission
of import duties Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President, B.
Vesterdorf and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:                                               of 19 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-169/96: Jean-Pierre Pierard v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
1. annuls the Commission's Decision of 20 December
     1995 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany              (Representation of officials and servants of the
     and concerning an application for remission of import          Commission on administrative bodies and on organs set
     duties,                                                        up under the Staff Regulations Ð Staff assigned to posts
                                                                       outside the European Union Ð No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (98/C 113/33)
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.                        In Case T-169/96: Jean-Pierre Pierard, an official of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                    by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                    SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
                                                                    Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of


title: Case T-94/05 RENV II: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Referral back to the General Court after setting aside — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/20

         Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission
   (Case T-94/05 RENV II) (1)

   (State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the General Court after setting aside - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 340/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: P. Spyropoulos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Mont Parnes Casino’ public contract.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE.

               3.

               Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs.

               4.

               Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case T-153/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/27

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission
   (Case T-153/13)
   2013/C 123/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Et Solar Industry Ltd (Taizhou City, China); Et Energy Co. Ltd (Taizhou City); and Dotec Electric Co. Ltd (Taizhou City) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision set out in its letter of 3rd January 2013 deciding that the applicants market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim will no longer be considered;

               —

               Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing and failing to respect the applicants’ rights to the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactive application of European Union law by unlawfully terminating the applicants’ MET claim thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.


title: Case T-282/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX — Earlier Community word mark IGLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)
   (Case T-282/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX - Earlier Community word mark IGLO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 190/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iglotex SA (Skórcz, Poland) (represented by: I.-M. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Iglo Foods Group Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Brandreth and C. Hall, Barristers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2013 (Case R 67/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd and Iglotex SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Iglotex SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise, by judgment of that court of 3 October 1995 in the case of Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA (Case C-352/95)

text:
No C 351 / 10            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30 . 12 . 95
( 1 ) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
       to adopt, alternatively, to communicate to the                      Justice, Queen 's Bench Division, Commercial Court, by
       Commission, all of the laws, regulations and                        order of that court of 31 October 1995 , in the case of The
       administrative measures necessary in order to comply                Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
       with Council Directive 91 /371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on                         ex parte: National Farmers ' Union and others
       the implementation of the Agreement between the                                                  Case C-354/95 )
       European Economic Community and the Swiss
       Confederation concerning direct insurance other than                                              ( 95/C 351 / 18 )
       life assurance ( 1 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
       the said Directive;                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
( 2 ) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                       Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court of
       costs .                                                             31 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                           on 20 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        of The Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and
                                                                           Food , ex parte: National Farmers ' Union and others, on the
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
                                                                           following questions :
Paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States
to whom directives are addressed to adopt the measures
necessary for the implementation of such directives within                 ( 1 ) are Article 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation
the time limit prescribed therein . The time limit in question                     ( EEC) No 3887/92 0 of 23 December 1992 laying
expired on 4 July 1993 but the Grand Duchy of                                      down detailed rules for applying the integrated
Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures .                                administration and control system for certain
                                                                                Community aid schemes ( prior to the entry into force
(') Of No L 205 , 27 . 7 . 1991 , p . 48 .                                         of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 (2 )) of 6 July 19 95
                                                                                amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 laying
                                                                                down detailed rules for applying the integrated
                                                                                administration and control system for certain
                                                                                Community aid schemes to be construed as requiring
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                            that all area related payments be refused to farmers
Commerce, Pontoise, by judgment of that court of                                   whose set aside land actually determined is found to be
3 October 1 995 in the case of Phytheron International SA                          less than that declared in an aid application when the
                        v. Jean Bourdon SA                                         difference is more than 20 % but when no false
                             Case C-352/95 )                                       intention or serious negligence has been found ?
                              ( 95/C 351 /1 7 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     ( 2 ) Are Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                              ( EEC ) No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of
 Commerce ( Commercial Court ), Pontoise, of 3 October                             Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) to be construed as
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                                requiring that all beef premiums be refused to farmers
 15 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        whose forage area actually determined is found to be
Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA on the                               less than that declared in an area aid application when
 following questions :                                                             the difference is more than 20% , but when no false
                                                                                intention or serious negligence has been found ?
 1 . can a product which is covered by a protected trade
      mark and which is lawfully acquired by a trader in
      Member State A in Member State B, where it is approved                ( 3 ) If the answer to question 1 and/or 2 is 'yes'» are
      and marketed under the same trade mark , be lawfully                         Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
      imported from Member State B and marketed in                                 No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of Regulation
      Member State A when the product in question :                                 ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) invalid , wholly or in part, by reason
                                                                                of breach of any principle of Community law,
      — is a genuine product which has not undergone any
                                                                                particularly legal certainty, non-discrimination and/or
           processing,
                                                                                proportionality ?
      — has not undergone any alteration in packaging, save
           for the addition on the label of a number of
           statements designed to comply with the legislative               ( 4 ) If the answer to question 1 and/or 2 is 'no', how are
           requirements of Member State A, and                                      Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of Regulation
      — is also approved in Member State A ?                                        ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) to be construed ?
 2 . Does a prohibition based on the trade mark legislation
      of Member State A infringe Article 30 of the EC
                                                                             ( 5 ) Regardless of the answers to questions 1 to 4, is it
      Treaty ?
                                                                                valid and lawful for Commission Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3887/92 to impose the sanction of loss of the entire


title: Case C-326/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 June 2011 — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 June 2011 — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-326/11)
   2011/C 269/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V.

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Must Article 13B(g), in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a), of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a building in respect of which, prior to its supply, the vendor had transformation work carried out with a view to the creation of a new building (refurbishment), work which was continued and completed by the purchaser after its supply, is not exempt from VAT?

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