title: Case T-251/03: Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/19
Decision of the Oppo-         Partial admission of the oppo-              Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:              sition and allowance to proceed
                              to registration of the Community
                              trade mark for the following                The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
                              goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing             of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
                              gum.                                        against her suspension from her duties following her removal
                                                                          from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
                                                                          Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Appeal:                       Société des Produits Nestlé.                position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
                                                                          and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.
Pleas in law:                 According to the applicant there
                              is no likelihood of confusion               This application is based on the following elements:
                              between the two marks and it
                              refers in this respect to a judgment        —     Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
                              of the Superior Court of justice in               the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
                              Madrid that allegedly stated that                 suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
                              Menorquina was not entitled to                    absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
                              oppose the use of the word mark                   Staff Regulation.
                              ‘POLO’ in Spain.
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation, in the
                                                                                absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
                                                                                urgent need to exclude her from the working place.
                                                                          —     Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
                                                                                the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
                                                                                portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.
                                                                          —     Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen                               a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.
                       (Case T-250/03)
                       (2003/C 239/37)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
                  (Language of the case: English)                         + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-251/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 239/38)
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.                                         (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting              European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
      the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her              GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
      duties;                                                             Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
                                                                          seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court;                            Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
                                                                          Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
                                                                          Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      The procedure provided for in Article 35 of Directive
                                                                               2001/82 can only affect and have an impact on the
                                                                               national marketing authorisation directly concerned by
—     annul the contested Decision requesting the Member                       it.
      States to suspend marketing authorizations for products
      containing benzathine penicillin under the referral pro-          —      In the present case there should not be ‘Community
      cedure of Article 35 of Directive 2001/82;                               interest’ justifying a referral.
—     alternatively declare the contested Decision non-existant;        (1 ) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
                                                                             6 November 2001, on the Community code relating to veterinary
                                                                             national products (OJ L 311, of 28 November 2001, p. 1),
                                                                             which consolidates and replaces Council Directive 81/851/EEC of
—     order the Defendant to bear the costs.                                 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                             Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317
                                                                             of 6 November 1981, p. 1, and the subsequent modifications).
                                                                        (2 ) OJ C 109, of 4.5.2002, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in the present case are all companies holding            Action brought on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals
national marketing authorisations issued by national com-               Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the Commission of
petent authorities for a veterinary medicinal product contain-                              the European Communities
ing the pharmacologically active substance ‘bezathine penicil-
lin’. That substance is a general antibiotic used in veterinary                                    (Case T-253/03)
injectable medicinal products for food producing animals.
                                                                                (2003/C 239/39)
The present application has been lodged against the Decision                                 (Language of the case: English)
of the Commission of 22 April 2003, ordering a suspension of
the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products
containing the substance benzathine penicillin on the basis of
Article 35 of Directive 2001/82/EC (1) (former Article 20 of            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Directive 81/851) in the framework of a so-called ‘Community            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
interest referral procedure’ initiated by the Irish authorities.        European Communities on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel
The applicants in the present case introduced an action                 Chemicals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), and Akcros Chemi-
for annulment against the Decision introducing the referral             cals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), represented by C. Swaak
procedure on 25 January 2002. The application, which is still           and R. Mollica, lawyers.
pending, was registered under Roll No T-19/02 ( 2).
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      review, under Article 230 EC, the legality of the Rejection
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:                   Decision;
                                                                        —      annul, under Article 231 EC, the Rejection Decision;
—     The Commission cannot oblige the Member States to
      suspend national marketing authorisations of products             —      order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the
      containing benzathine penicillin under the procedure                     present proceedings.
      contained in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 as this
      Article does not provide the Commission with the power
      to adopt decisions harmonising national marketing auth-
      orisations.                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Even if one were to accept that the procedure contained           In February 2003, representatives of the Commission perfor-
      in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 could lead to a binding        med an investigation on the basis of Article 14(3) of Regulation
      decision of the Commission, such procedure would at               17/62 with regard to the applicants in Eccles, Manchester. In
      most apply to veterinary medicinal products authorised            the course of the investigation, the Commission reviewed,
      under the mutual recognition procedure.                           took copies of and seized several documents ( 1).


title: Appeal brought on 18 August 1995 by Langnese-Iglo GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the Second Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/93 between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH (Case C-279/95 P)

text:
28 . 10 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 286/3
— Discrimination, inadequate statement of reasons ( see                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
      Cases C-71 /95 (2 ) and C-155/95 ( 3 )).                             Case T-7/93 (') between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, supported
(') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 of 30 May 1995                 by Mars GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice
      adopting transitional measures for the application of the tariff     of the European Communities on 18 August 1995 by
      quota arrangements for imports of bananas for the third quarter      Langnese-Iglo GmbH, Hamburg ( Federal Republic of
      of 1995 as a result of the accession of Austria , Finland and        Germany ), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernard M.
      Sweden ( OJ No L 120 , 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 20 ).                      Maassen, Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p . 13 .                               Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(■') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 3 .
                                                                           Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                          1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     the European Communities of 8 June 1995 in Case
Scala by order of that court of 27 July 1995 and supplement                     T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
of 4 September 1995 in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                     European Communities in so far as it dismissed the
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori                       appellant's action against Commission Decision
                 Associati Veneti soc.coop. a r.l .                             93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 , in a proceeding
                                                                                under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
                           ( Case C-2 73/95                                     IV/34.072 );
                             ( 95/C 286/05 )
                                                                           2 . declare void Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992, in a proceeding
European        Communities         by     order  of the     Pretura            under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     IV/34.072 );
Scala (Verona District Magistrate's Court — Isola della
Scala Division ) of 27 July 1995 , supplemented on                         3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the
4 September 1995 , which were received at the Court                             proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
Registry on 11 August and 12 September 1995 , for a                             costs of the appeal proceedings; or
preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                 in the alternative,
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori
Associati Veneti soc.coop . a r.l . on the following                            refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the
question :
                                                                                European Communities .
'Is Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 ( 1 ) and in particular
Articles 10 and 1 1 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the date to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
applying the agricultural conversion rate to the processing                Infringement of Community law when appraising the pleas
premium is the date on which the tobacco is delivered to the               in law: ( a ) infringement of the principle of the protection of
processor by the producer group or the date on which the                   legitimate expectations, ( b ) infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
product is supplied by the individual producer to the group                the Treaty ( effects on competition of the exclusive dealing
itself, and what constitutes " delivery under contract " within            agreements ) and ( c ) infringement of the principles of
the meaning of the abovementioned provisions ?'                            proportionality and of equal treatment .
(') O J No L 351 , 2 . 12 . 1992 , p . 17 .                                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 18 .
Appeal brought on 18 August 1995 by Langnese-Iglo                          Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the                  the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Second Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                      on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/93                  Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-3 1/9 1
between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the Commission of the                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
      European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH                                                    Communities
                         ( Case C-279/95 P )                                                      ( Case C-287/95 P
                              ( 95/C 286/06 )                                                        ( 95/C 286/07 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
 by the Second Chamber, extended composition, of the                        by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court


title: Case T-338/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MBP — Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP)
   (Case T-338/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MBP - Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)
   2013/C 336/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: M Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Schäffner, then A. Pohlmann, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany); Wolf E. Sajda (Munich); Johannes Bohnenberger (Munich); and Volkmar Kruspig (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke, M. Jacob and J. Herrlinger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1176/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger, Volkmar Kruspig and Müller-Boré & Partner Rechtsanwälte. Patentanwälte.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-540/15: Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-540/15) (1)

   (2016/C 200/23)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case C-71/08: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 14 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 14 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-71/08) (1)

   (2009/C 6/35)

      Language of the case: Czech

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-82/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/31

         Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-82/12)
   2012/C 109/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.


title: Action brought on 28 February 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-25/96)

text:
No C 145/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 5 . 96
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             The applicants claim that the Court should :
                      of 28 March 1996
                                                                     — annul Commission Decision K(95 ) 3319 final, of
in Case T-60/92 : Muireann Noonan v. Commission of the                    29 November 1 995 on special depreciation allowances
                 European Communities ( 1 )                               for aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
(Officials — Recruitment — Competition for category C —                   Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ('EStDV'
Refusal to admit to the competition — Candidates holding a               — income tax implementation Regulation ), inasmuch as
                       university degree)                                 that decision concerns the extension of the validity of
                                                                          that provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
                          ( 96/C 145/16 )
                                                                          1999 ,
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-60/92 : Muireann Noonan, a member of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
temporary staff of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, represented by James O'Reilly, Senior                   The applicants are an association of airlines and one of its
Counsel, of the Irish Bar, and at the hearing by Onno                members. The membership of the association comprises all
Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service           airlines engaged in the provision of supraregional and
                                                                     international air services which are not State-owned and do
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against the Commission of the European                 not have their seat in Germany ( including Lufthansa ,
Communities ( Agent: John Forman ) — action for the                  through its subsidiary Condor Flugdienst GmbH ). The
annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open             applicants contended in the proceeding conducted by the
Competition COM/C/741 not to admit the applicant to the              Commission that the period of validity of paragraph 82 f of
                                                                     the EStDV should be extended .
competition, notified to her on 9 June 1992 — the Court of
First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,             Paragraph 82 f of the EStDV regulates the way in which the
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                cost of acquisition of aircraft may be written down over the
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 1 996 , in         course of their normal useful life, that is to say, in the
which it:
                                                                     context of the computation of the profits of an undertaking.
                                                                     The provision affords airlines, to a certain extent, an option
1 . Annuls the decision of the Selection Board in Open               as to the way in which they spread their depreciation volume
    Competition COM/C/741 refusing to admit the                      over the period of depreciation .
    applicant to the tests in the competition.
                                                                     The applicants consider that the contested decision infringes
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                          the rules on competence laid down by the EC Treaty . They
                                                                     argue that paragraph 82 f of the EStDV forms an inherent
H OJ No C 258 , 7 . 10 . 1992 .                                      part of the German tax system . They contend that
                                                                     interference in the tax systems of the Member States is
                                                                     permissible only for the purposes of the approximation of
                                                                     laws, and not for the purposes of monitoring aid.
                                                                     The contested decision breaches the obligation to provide a
         Action brought on 28 February 1996 by                       statement of reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC
Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and              Treaty:
      Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH against the
        Commission of the European Communities                       — its wording and structure are such as to render the
                                                                         arguments contained in it incomprehensible,
                        ( Case T-25/96 )
                          ( 96/C 145/17)                             — the Commission made no findings of fact capable of
                                                                         verification in relation to any tax advantage for
              (Language of the case: German)                              undertakings, any loss of revenue for the State, any
                                                                         distortion of competition and/or any restriction on trade
                                                                         between Member States,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — the Commission assumed, on the basis of an error in
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February                      reasoning, that Germany had acknowledged that
1996 by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt                     paragraph 82 f of the EStDV was in the nature of an aid
Unternehmen, Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft                      measure ,
mbH, Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,           — the Commission left out of account several expert's
Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in                   reports stating that paragraph 82 f of the EStDV does
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34 b, rue                      not under any circumstances give rise to any tax
Philippe II .                                                            advantage or loss of revenue for the State but merely
 ---pagebreak---  18 . 5 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/9
      affords undertakings, to a certain extent, flexibility in        and the appointment of another candidate of Portuguese
      the way in which they draw up their accounts .                   nationality .
 The contested decision of the Commission infringes                    In support of his application the applicant alleges in
 Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty; the assumption as to               particular that the contested decisions are vitiated by the
 the existence of favourable treatment which distorts                  following defects :
 competition and restricts trade at the expense of the State's
 finances is founded on errors of law, alternatively manifest          — breach of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the
 errors in the assessment of the facts of the case . In                    administration did not take into account his right to be
 considering the question whether paragraph 82 f of the                    heard before taking the abovementioned decisions,
 EStDV may afford taxpayers an advantage in respect of
 interest, the Commission applied an erroneous standard of             — inadequate statement of reasons,
 comparison . The Commission's conclusions regarding the               — misuse of powers, inasmuch as, at least in so far as
 distortion of competition and restrictions on trade are
                                                                           concerns the Portuguese candidate finally selected, the
 illogical ; they are not based on verifiable findings of fact.            Council exceeded the criteria for filling the posts at issue .
                                                                           The applicant considers in this respect that the selected
                                                                           candidate does not possess the requisite experience,
                                                                      — misuse of powers , inasmuch as the appointment of the
                                                                           higher ranking officials of the Office for Harmonization
 Action brought on 11 March 1996 by José Gomes de Sa                       in the Internal Market, including the members of the
     Pereira against the Council of the European Union                     Boards of Appeal , was made in the context of a political
                         ( Case T-30/96 )                                  compromise .
                           ( 96/C 145/ 18 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Communities on 11 March 1996 by José de Sa Pereira,                                              ( Case T-35 /96 )
residing at S. Joâo de Ver, represented by Augusto Cardoso,                                         ( 96/C 145/ 19 )
of the Oporto Bar, with an address for service at his
Chambers, 16-1 Dt° Rua Jornal Correio da Feira , P-4520                               (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
Santa Maria da Feira .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1996
— annul the three decisions adopted by the Council of the             by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim ( Grand Duchy
     European Union on 25 October 1 995 appointing the                of Luxembourg ), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
     two presidents and the members of the Boards of Appeal           Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
     of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal                  Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 , Route de Longwy .
     Market,
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— in the alternative, annul the decision appointing the
     members of the First Board of Appeal in its entirety or, if      annul :
     appropriate, in so far as concerns Dr Luis Manuel
     Chaves Fonseca Ferrâo,                                           — the Commission's decision cancelling the procedure
                                                                           under vacancy notice COM/ 116/94 in accordance with
— order the Council of the European Union to pay the                       Article 29 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Staff Regulations,
     costs ,
                                                                      and, in so far as may be necessary,
— order the Council of the European Union to compensate
     the applicant for the damage caused to him by the                — the Commission's decision to reserve the post forming
     contested decisions in an amount to be decided by the                the subject-matter of vacancy notice COM/ 1 16/94 for a
     Court .                                                              national of a new Member State and to publish notice of
                                                                          open competition COM/A/929 ( Head of Unit V/F/3 ) in
                                                                          the C Series of the Official Journal of 1 June 1995 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      — the Commission's response, adopted on 14 December
The applicant, a Portuguese national, applied for the post of              1995 , rejecting the applicant's complaint of 14 July
member of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for                    1995 ;
Harmonization in the Internal Market. He challenges the
rejection of his candidature for the abovementioned post              order the defendant :


title: Case C-399/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — EU external action — Article 218(9) TFEU — Establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement — International agreement to which the European Union is not a party — International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) — ‘Acts having legal effects’  — OIV recommendations)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-399/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EU external action - Article 218(9) TFEU - Establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement - International agreement to which the European Union is not a party - International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) - ‘Acts having legal effects’ - OIV recommendations))
   2014/C 421/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, B. Beutler and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: P. Frantzen, acting as Agent), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, B. Schima and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case T-598/13: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/38

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
   (Case T-598/13) (1)

   (2015/C 155/45)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-113/95)

text:
No C 159/8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, a member of
                                                                      the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                Kremlis , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1 January 1993 . Contrary to what the defendant maintains,
complete and correct implementation of the Directive was              The applicant claims that the Court should :
not made impossible by the fact that the additional
provisions envisaged in Article 13 of the Directive,                  déclaré that the Italian Republic:
concerning loading density and the feeding, watering and
rest intervals to be observed, remain outstanding.                    — by failing to communicate the necessary provisions by
                                                                            law, regulation or administrative action to comply with
(M OJ No L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p . 17 .                                  Council Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ( a ) of 17 September 1990
                                                                            on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
                                                                            the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                            sectors , or by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
                                                                            comply therewith, in breach of Article 37 ( 1 ) of that
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of                        Directive, and
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                      — by failing to adopt by law, regulation or administrative
                              Germany
                                                                            action the necessary provisions to comply with Council
                       ( Case C-108/95 )                                    Directive 92/50/EEC ( 2 ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                          ( 95/C 159/16 )                                   coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                            service contracts, and in any event by failing to
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                       communicate such provisions, in breach of the first
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         subparagraph of Article 44 ( 1 ) of that Directive,
Communities on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-79/95 ; the time limits for implementation expired on
     time limit the measures necessary to comply with                  1 July 1992 ( Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ) and 1 July 1993
     Commission Directive 93/ 17/EEC of 30 March 1993                 ( Directive 92/50/EEC ).
     determining Community grades of basic seed potatoes,
     together with the conditions and designations                    (•) OJ No L 297, 29 . 10 . 1990 , p . 1 .
     applicable to such grades ( ! ), the Federal Republic of         ( 2 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty and under that Directive;
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by
                                                                      decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Texaco A/S v. Port of Middelfart and Others
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                      ( Case C-1 14/95
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                                             ( 95/C 159/ 18
 1 June 1993 .
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No L 106 , 30 . 4 . 1993 , p . 7.                              European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                                                                       ( Eastern Regional Court ) of 24 March 1995 , which was
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Texaco A/S v. Port of
                                                                      Middelfart and Others on the following questions:
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                1 . Must the compatibility with Community law of a 40 %
                        ( Case C-1 13/95 )
                                                                             surcharge on a general goods duty, which is levied by a
                                                                             Member State when goods are imported by ship from
                           ( 95/C 159/17)                                    another Member State, be assessed in the light of:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    (A ) — Articles 9 to 13 of the EC Treaty, if necessary in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                    conjunction with Articles 18 to 29 and Council
31 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987


title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Areacova, SA, Armadora José Pereira, SA, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán, SA, Centropesca, SA, Chymar, SA, Eloymar, SA, Exfaumar, SA, Farpespan, SL, Freiremar, SA, Hermandos Gandón, SA, Heroya, SA, Hiopesca, SA, José Pereira e Hijos, SA, Juana Oya Pérez, Manuel Nores González, Moradiña, SA, Navales Cerdeiras, SL, Nugago Pesca, SA, Pesquera Austral, SA, Pescaberbés, SA, Pesquerías Bígaro Narval, SA, Pesquera Cíes, SA, Pesca Herculina, SA, Pesquera Inter, SA, Pesquerías Marinenses, SA, Pesquerías Tara, SA, Pesquera Vaqueiro, SA, Sotelo Dios, SA, Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (ANAMER), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerías Varias (ANAVAR) and Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE) against the Council of the European Union (Case T-194/95)

text:
No C 315/22           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 . 11 . 95
Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Camping Qualité                    The applicants claim that the Court should :
France against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                 — annul the applicants ' pension statements for December
                                                                            1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation ( ECSC,
                         Case T-182/95 )                                    EC, Euratom ) No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 ,
                          ( 95 /C 315/42 )                                  inasmuch as that regulation lays down a weighting for
                                                                            Germany at the rate fixed for its capital , Berlin , only
                (Language of the case: French)                              with effect from 1 July 1994 and not from 3 October
                                                                            1990 , and , in so far as may be necessary, annul the
An action against the Commission of the European                            decision of the Commission of 26 July 1995 rejecting the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           applicants ' complaint,
Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1995
by Camping Qualité France, an association whose registered             — reinstate the applicants' pension rights in full , weighted
office is in Paris , represented by Jean-Michel Roche and                   at the rate fixed for Berlin since 3 October 1990 ,
Jean-Claude Cohen, of the Paris Bar, with an address for               — order the defendant to pay default interest on the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stef Oostvogels,                   pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to
 13 Rue Aldringen .                                                         30 June 1994 , calculated in relation to the same period,
                                                                            at the annual rate of 10% .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul , together with all its legal consequences, the
    Commission's decision of 27 July 1995 , received on                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
    4 August 1995 , demanding from the applicant                       already invoked in          Cases T-l 71 /95 , T- 172/95       and
    reimbursement of ECU 51 405,74 out of the sum of                   T - 173 /95 .
    ECU 90 000 granted by way of Community subsidy for
    its project for the development of a European chain of
    quality outdoor holiday centres .
                                                                       Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Areacova, SA,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Armadora José Pereira, SA, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán,
                                                                       SA, Centropesca, SA, Chymar, SA, Eloymar, SA, Exfaumar,
The applicant claims, first, that the contested decision is not        SA, Farpespan , SL, Freiremar, SA, Hermandos Gandón , SA,
accompanied by a sufficient statement of reasons, since it             Heroya, SA, Hiopesca, SA, José Pereira e Hijos , SA, Juana
makes no reference to any legislation or individual provision          Oya Pérez, Manuel Nores González, Moradiña, SA, Navales
empowering the Commission to adopt a decision of that                  Cerdeiras, SL, Nugago Pesca, SA, Pesquera Austral , SA,
nature .
                                                                       Pescaberbés, SA, Pesquerías Bígaro Narval , SA, Pesquera
As regards the decision 's content, the applicant considers it         Cíes , SA, Pesca Herculina, SA, Pesquera Inter, SA,
to be unfounded , in that, first, it is based on facts which are       Pesquerías Marinenses, SA, Pesquerías Tara, SA, Pesquera
inaccurate and, secondly , it questions the quality of the             Vaqueiro, SA, Sotelo Dios, SA, Asociación Nacional de
project, whereas at this stage the Commission may only                 Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza
verify matters concerning the financial use of the amounts             ( ANAMER ), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques
granted .
                                                                       Congeladores de Pesquerías Varias ( ANAVAR ) and
                                                                       Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas ( ASPE )
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-l 94/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/44 )
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Franz Becker,
Giuseppe Lisitano, Richard Mirsberger, Gerda                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
Müller-Maersch, Heinz L. Nörenberg, Wolfram Pütz and
Gerhard Tscheepe against the Commission of the European                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                          Communities                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 1 6 October 1 995 by Areacova , SA, ( whose
                       ( Case T-l 91 /95 )                             registered office is in Vigo , Spain ), Armadora Jose Pereira ,
                         ( 95/C 315/43 )                               SA , ( whose registered office is in Vigo , Spain ), Armadores
                                                                       Pesqueros de Aldan, SA , ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
               (Language of the case: French)                          Spain ), Centropesca , SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
                                                                       Spain ), Chymar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
An action against the Commission of the European                       Spain ), Eloymar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Estribela ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Spain ), Exfaumar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Bueu ,
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995                Spain ), Farpespan , SL , ( whose registered office is in Moana ,
by Franz Becker, Giuseppe Lisitano, Richard Mirsberger,                Spain ), Freiremar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
Gerda Müller-Maersch , Heinz L. Nörenberg, Wolfram Pütz                Spain ), Hermandos Gandón , SA , ( whose registered office is
and Gerhard Tscheepe , all residing in Germany, represented            in Cangas, Spain ), Heroya , SA , ( whose registered office is in
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels               Vigo, Spain ), Hiopesca , SA , ( whose registered office is in
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices          Vigo , Spain ), Jose Pereira e Hijos , SA , ( whose registered
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener .                            office is in Vigo, Spain ), Juana Oya Perez ( whose registered
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315 /23
office is in Vigo , Spain ), Manuel Nores Gonzalez, ( whose          halibut in NAFO waters in areas 2 and 3 , according to the
registered office is in Marin, Spain ), Moradiña , SA, ( whose       fishing plans approved by the Spanish administrative
registered office is in Cangas, Spain ), Navales Cerdeiras, SL,      authorities for 1995 and in compliance with the TAC
( whose registered office is in Camariñas , La Corunna ,             granted by the Secretaria Española General de Pesca
Spain ), Nugago Pesca , SA, ( whose registered office is in          Maritima . The action brought by the applicants seeks the
Bueu , Spain ), Pesquera Austral , SA, ( whose registered office     annulment of the regulation which provisionally applies the
is in Vigo, Spain ), Pescaberbés , SA, (whose registered office      Agreement concluded between the European Communitiy
is in Vigo, Spain ), Pesquerías Bígaro Narval , SA, ( whose          and Canada in the context of NAFO , reducing the quota of
registered office is in Vigo, Spain ), Pesquera Cíes, SA,            catches of Greenland halibut for the Community fleet to
( whose registered office is in Vigo, Spain ), Pesca Herculina ,     5 013 tonnes as from 16 April 1995 .
SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Spain ), Pesquera
Inter, SA, ( whose registered office is in Cangas, Spain ),
Pesquerías Marinenses, SA, ( whose registered office is in           As regards, in particular, the contested Regulation , the
Marin , Spain ), Pesquerías Tara , SA, (whose registered office      applicants claim that it lacks an adequate statement of
is in Cangas, Spain ), Pesquera Vaqueiro, SA, ( whose                reasons, as required by Article 190 of the Treaty, and
registered office is in Vigo, Spain ), Sotelo Dios, SA, ( whose      infringes Article 8 ( 4 ) ( v ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3760/92
registered office is in Vigo, Spain ), Asociacion Nacional de        on the system for fisheries and aquaculture inasmuch as it
Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza                 disregards the findings of NAFO's Scientific Advisory
( ANAMER ), ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Spain ),           Committee , which is substantially more favourable to the
Asociacion Nacional de Armadores de Buques                           interests of Spanish fishermen , when establishing the fishing
Congeladores de Pesquerías Varias ( ANAVAR ), ( whose                quota for Greenland halibut for the Community fleet in
registered office is in Vigo , Spain ), and Asociacion de            1995 .
Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas ( ASPE ), ( whose registered
office is in Vigo, Spain ), represented by Antonio Creus
Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado , of the Barcelona Bar,             As regards the international agreement, on the basis of
and by Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with           which the contested regulation was adopted, the applicants
an address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem ,                    raise an objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the
Brussels .                                                           Council omitted to consult the European Parliament when
                                                                     concluding the aforementioned bilateral agreement, thereby
The applicants claim that the Court should :                         infringing the formal requirements laid down in Article 228
                                                                     of the Treaty .
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1761 /95 of 29 June
     1 995 amending, for the second time , Regulation ( EC )
     No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation            Furthermore, the applicants consider that the provision
     and management measures for fishery resources in the            which is the subject-matter of the dispute infringes the
     Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future          following principles :
     Multilateral Cooperation in the North-west Atlantic
     Fisheries , inasmuch as it establishes the quota for            — legal certainty , in view of the insufficient and ambiguous
     Greenland halibut for the Community fleet in NAFO                    reasons for the provisional application of an agreement
     areas 3 LMNO at 5 013 , modifying the autonomous                     which is neither known nor accessible to the applicants
     quota of 18 630 tonnes established by Regulation ( EC )              and of the lack of any indication as to the scope ratione
     No 850/95 ,                                                          temporis of the contested Regulation ,
— declare the Bilateral Agreement of Fishing between the
     European Community and the Government of Canada ,               — legitimate expectations and proportionality, inasmuch
     signed on 20 April 1995 in the context of the NAFO                   as it establishes a certain quota as from 16 April 1995
     Convention , inapplicable in so far as it establishes a              which is substantially less than that enjoyed to date , with
     quota for catches of Greenland halibut for the                       no gradual implementation or any accompanying
     Community fleet of 5 0 13 tonnes as from 16 April 1995 ,             measure which might mitigate its negative consequences
     which is below the autonomous quota established by                   for economic operators, and
     Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 , and in so far as it is the basis
     for     the     abovementioned        Regulation         ( EC ) — relative stability and respect for the traditional fishing
     No 1761 /95 ,                                                        rights of States .
— order the Council to pay all the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                   Finally, the applicants claim that: the abovementioned
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 provision is vitiated by a misuse of powers inasmuch as it
                                                                     gives precedence to the requirements of the commercial
 The applicant companies in the present case own the 36              policy over those of the fishing policy, to the detriment of the
 Spanish freezer trawlers authorized to catch Greenland               interests and acquired rights of the Community fleet .


title: Case T-119/99: Action brought on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/37
European Communities on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                  Action brought on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi                       Commission of the European Communities
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service
ir Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36, Rue de                                       (Case T-119/99)
Wiltz.
                                                                                (1999/C 226/66)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
— Annul the decision not to admit Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina
     to the oral tests in Competition COM/B/18/96.                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 European Communities on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer
                                                                         residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                         of the Bar of The Hague, having an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare internal competition COM/LA/2/89 void, or in any
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of candidates             event annul the decision of the selection board, as notified
admitted to the oral test in Competition COM/B/18/96 for                     to the applicant by letter of 15 February 1999. not to
transfer from Category C to Category B, grades 5 and 4.                      include the applicant on the list of suitable candidates;
According to the Notice of Competition, the 120 candidates
achieving the highest marks in the written test would be
invited to take the oral test, provided that they achieved the           — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
pass mark required in the written test.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant stases that the representative of the Chairman of
the Selection Board informed her that she had been awarded a             The applicant, who was at the time a temporary Commission
mark of 26 out of 50 but that candidates had to have a                   official (interpreter), was unsuccessful in the above internal
minimum mark of 33 to be included amongst the 120 best                   competition and was dismissed.
candidates. Consequently, although she had been awarded the
pass mark, she was told that her marks were not sufficient for           His action against the decision of the selection board was
her to be admitted to the oral tests.                                    upheld (Case T-43/91). The decision dismissing him was
                                                                         set aside on the ground that it was based on an invalid
                                                                         selection-board decision (Case T-51/91).
The applicant lodged a complaint, seeking annulment of the
decision not to admit her to the oral test, of the list drawn up         The Court of First Instance did not annul the internal
on the basis of the written tests, of Section VI, paragraph (C),         competition as such, but stated in paragraph 65 of its judgment
of the Notice of Competition and of the final list of successful         in Case T-43/91 that Mr Hoyer’s rights would be properly
candidates in the competition.                                           safeguarded ‘if the appointing authority were to seek an
                                                                         equitable solution for him’.
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         The applicant objected to the re-opening and/or continuation
                                                                         of the internal competition.
— breach of Article 28(d) of the Staff Regulations applicable
     to officials and of Article 5(2) and (5) of Annex III thereto       Contrary to its undertakings, however, the Commission did
     (Competitions) by Section VI, paragraph (C), of Notice of           re-open and continue the internal competition. In protest, the
     Competition COM/B/18/96; and                                        applicant participated in the tests, but was unsuccessful.
— breach and misapplication of Section VI, paragraph (A),                The grounds of his application for a declaration annulling the
     final subparagraph, of the Notice of Internal Competition           internal competition are as follows:
     relating to the said competition.
                                                                         — infringement of the principle of equality and breach of
                                                                             essential procedural requirements;
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment,
failure to state reasons and misuse of powers.                           — breach of Article 233 EC (ex Article 176);
                                                                         — breach of express agreements.


title: Case C-39/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2011 — VBV — Vorsorgekasse AG v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2011 — VBV — Vorsorgekasse AG v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)
   (Case C-39/11)
   2011/C 130/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VBV — Vorsorgekasse AG

      Defendant: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

      Question referred

   Is a provision which permits a severance fund to invest assets allocated to a collective investment fund only in shares in investment funds which are authorised to sell in Austria compatible with the freedom of movement of capital set out in Article 63 et seq. TFEU?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Brescia, by order of 24 November 1998, in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH (Case C-456/98)

text:
20.2.1999              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 48/17
7. V i o l a t i o n o f t h e    legal   concept      of   the       3. What conditions must be satisfied for the issuer of an
     misuse of powers                                                     invoice to be acting in good faith?
     The Apellant further submits that the Court of First
     Instance made an error of law in applying the concept
     of misuse of powers in that:
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Brescia, by order of 24 November 1998,
     Ð it refused to appraise globally all the relevant and                  in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH
         consistent factors raised by the applicant and even
         omitted to examine an important number thereof;                                     (Case C-456/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/27)
     Ð it illegally defined the type of facts which may
         constitute the objective, relevant and consistent            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         factors of a misuse of powers.                               European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Brescia (District Magistrate's Court,
                                                                      Brescia) of 24 November 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
                                                                      Court Registry on 14 December 1998, for a preliminary
(3) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 (First             ruling in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH on
    Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty)         the following questions:
    (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87).
(4) Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the         1. What is the interpretation of Articles 52, 53, 54, 55,
    hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation          56, 57 and 58 of the EC Treaty; in particular, do
    No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964, p. 47).
                                                                          Articles 2 and 9 of Italian Law No 205 of 1985, under
                                                                          which entry in a register is compulsory for any person
                                                                          acting as an agent and an agency contract concluded
                                                                          by a person not entered on that register is void,
                                                                          constitute a restriction on the freedom of
                                                                          establishment?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof             2. Do the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of
by order of that court of 15 October 1998 in the case of                  establishment contained in Articles 52 to 58 preclude
Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG against Finanzamt                          national legislation which makes the validity of an
 Borken and Manfred Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen                   agency contract subject to entry of the commercial
                         (Case C-454/98)                                  agent in an appropriate register?
                          (1999/C 48/26)                              3. Do the provisions on freedom to provide services
                                                                          contained in Articles 59 to 66 preclude national
                                                                          legislation which makes the validity of an agency
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    contract subject to the requirement of entry of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      commercial agent in an appropriate register?
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 October 1998 received at
the Court Registry on 11 December 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the cases of Schmeink & Cofreth AG
& Co. KG against Finanzamt Borken and Manfred
Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen on the following
questions:                                                            Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des
                                                                      Poudres SpheÂriques against the judgment delivered on
                                                                      15 October 1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended
1. Does Community law require that provision be made                  Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
     to allow rectification of an improperly invoiced tax as          European Communities in Case T-2/95 between Industrie
     part of the procedure for determining the tax or is it           des Poudres SpheÂriques and the Council of the European
     sufficient for the Member States to permit rectification         Union, supported by the Commission of the European
     only in a later procedure for determining whether                Communities, PeÂchiney EÂlectromeÂtallurgie and the
     payment of the tax is equitable (on objective'                  Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de
     grounds)?                                                                                l'EÂlectrochimie
                                                                                (Case C-458/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/28)
2. Is it an imperative prerequisite for rectifying an
     improperly invoiced tax that the issuer of the invoice
     should demonstrate good faith or are there other                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 October
     circumstances in which an invoice may be rectified               1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
     (and, if so, what are those circumstances)?                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities in


title: Case C-375/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Validity of a classification regulation — Interpretation of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 — Articles 220 and 239 of the Customs Code — Articles 871 and 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Dried sheets consisting of rice flour, salt and water — Tariff classification — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Procedure for remission — Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities — Obvious negligence on the part of the importer)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV
   (Case C-375/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity of a classification regulation - Interpretation of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 - Articles 220 and 239 of the Customs Code - Articles 871 and 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Dried sheets consisting of rice flour, salt and water - Tariff classification - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Procedure for remission - Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer)
   (2009/C 6/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 170, p. 13), of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 212, p. 18), and of Article 871(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Dried sheets consisting of rice flour, salt and water — Tariff classification under heading 1905 of the CN — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties — Error on the part of the customs authorities which could not ‘reasonably have been detected by the person liable for payment’ — Mandatory reference to the Commission
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Sheets prepared from rice flour, salt and water which are then dried, but do not undergo any heat treatment, are covered by subheading 1905 90 20 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1624/97 of 13 August 1997.

               2.

               Examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.

               3.

               Where an application for remission of import duties has been submitted to the Commission of the European Communities by a Member State under Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and the Commission has already adopted a decision containing assessments of fact and law in a particular case concerning import transactions, such assessments bind all the authorities of the Member State to which that decision was addressed, in accordance with Article 249 EC, including the courts which have to assess that case under Article 220 of that regulation.
               If the importer has, within the period prescribed in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, brought an action for annulment of a decision of the Commission of the European Communities in respect of an application for remission of import duties pursuant to Article 239 of that regulation, it is for the national court to decide whether to stay the proceedings until a definitive decision has been given in the action for annulment or to refer itself a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling as to validity.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 31 July 1997, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Midland Bank plc (Case C-98/98)

text:
C 166/10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.5.98
cultivated and disturbances caused by motorway and road             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
schemes.                                                            Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                    31 July 1997, in the case of the Commissioners of
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.                                           Customs and Excise against Midland Bank plc
(2) Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR 4221.                                        (Case C-98/98)
                                                                                (98/C 166/16)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Pargas Tingsrätt            Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 31 July 1997, which
of 25 March 1998 in the case of Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf          was received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1998, for a
                          Gustafsson                                preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
                       (Case C-97/98)                               Customs and Excise against Midland Bank plc, on the
                                                                    following questions:
                        (98/C 166/15)
                                                                    On the proper interpretation of Council Directive 67/227/
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              EEC (1) of 11 April 1967, in particular Article 2, and
European Communities by an order of the Pargas                      Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977, in
Tingsrätt (District Court) of 25 March 1998, which was              particular Article 17(2), (3) and (5), and having regard to
received at the Court Registry on 6 April 1998, for a               the facts of the present case:
preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf
Gustafsson on the following questions:
                                                                    (1) Is it necessary to establish a direct and immediate link
Ð Are fishing rights or spinning licenses goods' in                    between a particular input obtainable by a taxable
     accordance with the judgment in Case 7/68                          person acting as such and a particular transaction or
     Commission v Italian Republic [1968] ECR 423?                      transactions made by that person in order to:
                                                                        (a) establish the existence of an entitlement to deduct
Ð Does the amendment in Finland of the Law on Fishing
                                                                             tax charged in respect of the input; and
     1045/1996 constitute an obstacle to the free
     movement of goods according to the criteria laid
     down in Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837?                      (b) determine the extent of that entitlement?
Ð Does a leisure angler's recreational interest constitute a
                                                                    (2) If the answer to (1)(a) or (b) is in the affirmative, what
     permissible ground under Article 36 of the European
                                                                        is the nature of the direct and immediate link and, in
     Community's basic treaty?
                                                                        particular, in the case of a taxable person making both
                                                                        transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and
Ð Does the present case involve agricultural products                   transactions in respect of which it is not:
     within the meaning of Article 37(4) of the Treaty of
     Rome?                                                              (a) is the test for determining the amount of input tax
                                                                             that is deductible any different as between
Ð Does the aforementioned legal rule have direct legal                       Article 17(2), (3) and (5) (and, if so, in which
     effect in accordance with the judgment in Case 6/64                     respects is it different); and
     Costa v ENEL (1)?
                                                                        (b) is such a person entitled to deduct all the input tax
                                                                             charged in respect of an input on the ground that
Ð Has sufficient       account   been   taken    of  farmers'
                                                                             the input was utilised as a consequence of making
     interests?
                                                                             a transaction falling within Articles 17(2) or 17(3),
                                                                             in particular Article 17(3)(c)?
Ð Does such an amendment of the Law on Fishing 1045/
     1996 concerning spinning contravene or not
     contravene the rules governing the free movement of            (3) If the answer to 1(a) or (b) is in the negative:
     goods (or the free provision of services) laid down in
     the European Community's basic treaty?                             (a) what is the link that has to be established; and
(1) ECR 1964, p. 614.
                                                                        (b) in the case of a taxable person making both
                                                                             transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible
                                                                             and transactions in respect of which it is not:
 ---pagebreak--- 30.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 166/11
          (i) is the test for determining the amount of input                communicated to the Commission and to the Court of
               tax that is deductible any different as between               Justice, so that all the evidence may be made available
               Article 17(2), (3) and (5) (and, if so, in which              on an equal footing.
               respects is it different); and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
          (ii) is such a person entitled to deduct all the input
               tax charged in respect of an input on the                 Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
               ground that the input was utilised as a                       expectations;
               consequence of making a transaction falling
               within Article 17(3)(c)?                                  Ð Breach of the principle of equality of arms, by virtue
                                                                             of the piecemeal approach to the evidence;
(1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the           Ð Breach of the principle of equality of treatment,
    harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning
                                                                             whereby comparable situations are not to be treated
    turnover taxes (OJ 71 of 14.4.1967, p. 1301 (SE SER1 67
    p. 14)).                                                                 differently and different situations are not to be
(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                 treated alike;
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                   Ð Violation of the case-law established by Community
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).               law.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Smanor SA, Hubert                     Administratif de Dijon by judgment of that court of
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud against the order made on                    24 March 1998 in the case of CRT France International
16 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                        SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                                              (Case C-109/98)
T-182/97 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                                                                                (98/C 166/18)
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud and, on the other, the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (Case C-103/98 P)                                European Communities by a judgment of the First
                           (98/C 166/17)                                 Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon
                                                                         (Administrative Court, Dijon), of 24 March 1998, which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1998, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of CRT France International
An appeal against the order made on 16 February 1998
                                                                         SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne on the
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         following question:
the European Communities in Case T-182/97 between, on
the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique                      Whether the provisions of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the
SeÂgaud and, on the other, the Commission of the                         Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
European Communities was brought before the Court of                     Economic Community preclude the national authorities
Justice of the European Communities on 14 April 1998 by                  from imposing on manufacturers, importers and persons
Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud,                           making supplies in France of transmitting/receiving sets
represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,                 operating on two-way channels a tax, the rules for which
with an address for service at 9 Rue du GeÂneÂral de                     are laid down by Article 302 bis (X) of the Code GeÂneÂral
Larminat, CreÂteil.                                                      des Impôts.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
Ð rule that the order made by the Court of First Instance
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-50/97 (1)
     on 16 February 1998 is vitiated by a manifest error of
     assessment;                                                                                (98/C 166/19)
                                                                         By order of 14 October 1997, the President of the Court
Ð rule that the Commission made an error of assessment                   of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     in the conclusions contained in its letter of 21 May                removal from the register of Case C-50/97: (Reference for
     1997;                                                               a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
                                                                         te Almelo): Jan Blauw and Others v Gavema BV.
Ð grant the appellants' application for an order that the                (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
     documents in the Smanor case held by the French
     authorities in their administrative archives be


title: Joined Cases C-78/16 and C-79/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia (Preliminary ruling — Protection of plant health — Directive 2000/29/EC — Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 — Measures designed to avoid the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) — Article 6(2)(a) — Obligation to carry out the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the infected plants — Validity — Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/29 — Principle of proportionality — Precautionary principle — Obligation to state reasons — Right to compensation)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia
   (Joined Cases C-78/16 and C-79/16) (1)

   ((Preliminary ruling - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures designed to avoid the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) - Article 6(2)(a) - Obligation to carry out the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the infected plants - Validity - Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/29 - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle - Obligation to state reasons - Right to compensation))
   (2016/C 296/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16)

      Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

      Operative part of the judgment

   The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of Article 6(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.), in the light of Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, as amended by Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002, read in the light of the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality and in the light of the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.