Important legal notice

|

E2002P0002

Action brought on 30 July 2002 by Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and The Bellona Foundation against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/02)

Official Journal C 293 , 28/11/2002 P. 0007 - 0007

Action brought on 30 July 2002 by Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and The Bellona Foundation against the EFTA Surveillance Authority(Case E-2/02)(2002/C 293/07)An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 July 2002 by Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and The Bellona Foundation, represented by Advokathuset Feydt &  Hamborgstrøm, St. Olavs gate 21A, N-0165 Oslo.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. annual the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 31 May 2002 - on the notifications of a proposal for amended depreciation rules on the Petroleum Tax Act for production equipment and pipelines for gas linked to new large-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities located in Finnmark county or the municipalities of Kåfjord, Skjervøy, Nordreisa or Kvænangen in Troms county and the application of these rules to the Snøhvit project (Aid No 020.500.041) (Norway); and2. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support- Article 5.2(1) of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's State Aid Guidelines, provides that "the EFTA Surveillance Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement whenever it is in any doubt about the compatibility of the aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement."- Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that "aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest" may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.- The applicant pleas that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has misused its powers and infringed general principles of Community law.


title: Case T-69/01: Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank

text:
16.6.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/35
The applicant claims that those three special features have                 Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale
resulted in the applicant and operators in a similar position               Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the
being granted lower reference quantities than they would have               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
received if the rules governing the organisation of the market                                 the European Communities
had continued to be applied without being changed.
                                                                                (Case T-65/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/63)
The applicant seeks, by way of compensation, to be placed in
the position in which it would have been had its reference
quantity for 1999 been calculated in accordance with the                                        (Language of the case: German)
unchanged rules governing the organisation of the market.
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of its claims, it asserts that the Community has                 on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft
infringed Article 6 of Regulation No 1924/95 (2) and the                    Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represent-
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing          ed by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service
to determine the applicant’s rights of access to the market in              in Luxembourg.
1999 in accordance with Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation
No 1442/93. In addition, it maintains that the Community has                The applicant claims that the Court should:
failed, in its formulation of the prohibition of retroactive effect,
to respect the requirement of legal certainty, in that it has               —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
retroactively applied the distribution formula prescribed by                      EUR 3 604 232 together with interest thereon at the rate
Regulation No 2362/98 (3) to reference quantities from the                        of 2,9 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
years 1994 to 1996.                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                                occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
                                                                                least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 3 604 232 ;
                                                                            —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
In addition, the special rules applying to operators in the new
                                                                                applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Member States infringe the prohibition of discrimination laid
                                                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC;
                                                                                Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
moreover, no adequate statement of reasons has been given.
                                                                                contained therein;
                                                                            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
Lastly, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation has declared that the system for the allocation of             Pleas in law and main arguments
import licences, as laid down in Regulations Nos 1637/98 and
2362/98, is incompatible in certain essential respects with the             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
law governing the World Trade Organisation. In the applicant’s              advanced in Case T-64/01 (Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
view, the Community has failed to respect the fact that it is               GmbH v Council and Commission).
bound by that decision.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements
    for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6).         Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1924/95 of 3 August 1995                             Tralli against the European Central Bank
    laying down transitional measures for the application of the tariff
    quota arrangements for imports of bananas as a result of the                                      (Case T-69/01)
    accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 185, p. 24).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998                                         (2001/C 173/64)
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
                                                                            (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                            Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte.
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16.6.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the President of the European               —     annul the defendant’s decision, at least in so far as
      Central Bank of 12 March 2001 rejecting the applicant’s                 regards Article 43 of the Normas Forales mentioned in
      complaint;                                                              Article 1(b), (c) and (d) of that decision;
—     annul the defendant’s notice of termination dated 29 No-          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      vember 2000;
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
      between the parties has not been brought to an end by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the notice of termination dated 29 November 2000;
                                                                        This action has been brought against Commission Decision of
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
                                                                        31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (1), in so far
      between the parties has continued to exist, without being
                                                                        as it finds any aid granted by Spain under Article 43 of
      terminated, after 31 December 2000;
                                                                        Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax
                                                                        adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; Article 43 of
—     order the defendant to continue, beyond 31 December               Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
      2000, to provide the applicant with employment as a               adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipúzcoa; and Article 43
      security guard in accordance with the contractually agreed        of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
      conditions of employment;                                         adopted by the Provincial Council of Álava, to ECSC steel
                                                                        undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the
                                                                        common market in coal and steel.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Those fiscal provisions grant a 25 % reduction in respect of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         investments actually made in, inter alia, the creation of branches
                                                                        or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition
                                                                        of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries
The action is based on the same facts and circumstances as in           directly associated with the export of goods or services.
Cases T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, p. 61),
T-27/01 Tralli v ECB (not yet published) and T-56/01 Tralli v
ECB (not yet published); the pleas in law and arguments                 The contested decision was adopted following the procedure
advanced are analogous to those put forward in those cases.             laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision
                                                                        No 2496/96/ECSC (‘the Steel Aid Code’).
                                                                        In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that:
                                                                        —     the aid is non-existent, inasmuch as the provisions in
                                                                              issue are horizontal in nature and are of general appli-
                                                                              cation which does not result in any advantage either at
Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico                      regional level or with respect to a specific category of
de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against                      undertaking. The aid is non-existent also under the ECSC
         Commission of the European Communities                               Treaty, so that the applicants allege infringement of
                                                                              Article 4(c) of that Treaty, as well as misuse of powers,
                                                                              on the ground that the defendant chose the ECSC Treaty
                         (Case T-77/01)                                       as the basis for its decision.
                        (2001/C 173/65)                                 —     the Commission has failed to state reasons, in particular
                                                                              inasmuch as the contested decision amounts to a change
                                                                              of assessment criterion on the part of the Commission,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                             which has given no reasons for it.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               —     the Commission has failed to state reasons and committed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    an error of assessment, inasmuch as the finding of aid
European Communities on 30 March 2001 by Territorio                           automatically applies to the Normas Forales by the mere
Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others,                  fact that they coincide, so far as their content is concerned,
Spain, represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.                                 with State tax legislation.


title: Case T-521/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a capital letter ‘D’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)
   (Case T-521/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a capital letter ‘D’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Gaul, M. Frank, A. Parassina and K. Dani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Diesel SpA;

               3.

               Orders Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case C-380/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2014  — Dorothea Eckert and Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2014 — Dorothea Eckert and Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-380/14)
   2014/C 421/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   By order of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2014, the present case was removed from the Court’s Register.


title: Case T-335/11: Judgment of the General Court of of 17 May 2013 — Bulgaria v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Single area payment — ‘Disadvantaged areas’ — Complementary national direct payments — Operation of the geographic information system and of the identification system for agricultural parcels — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Proportionality — Legal certainty — obligation to state reasons)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/19

         Judgment of the General Court of of 17 May 2013 — Bulgaria v Commission
   (Case T-335/11) (1)

   (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Single area payment - ‘Disadvantaged areas’ - Complementary national direct payments - Operation of the geographic information system and of the identification system for agricultural parcels - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Proportionality - Legal certainty - obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 189/38
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and T. Ivanov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, D. Dimov, G. Koleva and D. Stefanov, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2001, on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33), as regards the Republic of Bulgaria

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case C-440/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/3

         Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)
   (Case C-440/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (represented by: D. Farnsworth, solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Sheraton International IP LLC
   By order of 12 January 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-243/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
19.7.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 171/19
(3) How should the requirement that the use must be                      Action brought on 5 June 2003 by the Commission of
       ‘necessary’ to indicate the intended purpose of a product         the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
       be interpreted? Can the criterion of necessity be satisfied                                     Netherlands
       even though it would in itself be possible to state the
       intended purpose without an express reference to the
                                                                                (Case C-241/03)
       third party’s trade mark, by merely mentioning only for
       instance the technical principle of functioning of the
       product? What significance does it have in that case that                                     (2003/C 171/28)
       the statement may be more difficult for consumers to
       understand if there is no express reference to the third
       party’s trade mark?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
(4) What factors should be taken into account when assessing             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       accordance with honest commercial practice? Does the              5 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
       mentioning of a third party’s trade mark in connection            ties, represented by G. Zavvos and W. Wils, as Agents.
       with the marketing of one’s own product constitute a
       reference to the fact that the marketer’s own product
       corresponds, in quality and technically or as regards its         The applicant claims that the Court should:
       other properties, to the product designated by the third
       party’s trade mark?                                               —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(5) Does it affect the permissibility of the use of a third                     Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of
       party’s trade mark that the economic operator who refers                 the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
       to the third party’s trade mark also markets, in addition                laws of the Members States relating to insurance against
       to a spare part or accessory, a product of his own which                 civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and
       that spare part or accessory is intended to be used with?                amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/
                                                                                EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) ( 1), or in any
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
     marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                        obligations under that directive;
                                                                         —      order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1a Instancia n o 35 (Barcelona) by order of that Court of
5 May 2003 in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against
                         A. Omedas Lecha                                 The time limit for compliance with the directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
                          (Case C-235/03)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.
                          (2003/C 171/27)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de 1a Instancia
no 35 (Court of First Instance No 35) (Barcelona) of 5 May
2003, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against                 Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
A. Omedas Lecha on the following question:                                    European Communities against the French Republic
Within the context of the protection accorded a creditor under                                       (Case C-243/03)
Directive 2000/35/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in                                             (2003/C 171/29)
commercial transaction, is it possible to regard as a debt-
related recovery cost the expenses arising from the use of legal
representation and assistance in the enforcement proceedings
brought for the purpose of recovering that debt.                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
( 1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.                                        by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by E. Traversa, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/20               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            19.7.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the French Republic
the Court should:                                                        against the European Parliament and the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
1.    declare that by introducing a special rule limiting the
      deductibility of VAT on the purchase of capital goods on
                                                                                (Case C-244/03)
      the ground that they were financed by subsidies, the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Community law, and in particular Articles 17 and 19 of                                      (2003/C 171/30)
      the Sixth Council Directive of May 1977, as amended, on
      the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( 1);
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         of the European Communities on 10 June 2003 by the French
                                                                         Republic, represented by F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues and
                                                                         Ch. Lemaire, of acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Articles 17 to 20 of the Sixth Directive establish the scheme
for the right of taxable persons to deduct VAT. Taxable persons
who carry out transactions giving rise to the right to deduct            —     Article 1(2) of Directive 2003/15/EC of the European
and at the same time transactions not giving rise to that right                Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 ( 1) in
                                                                               so far as it introduces a new Article 4a into Council
may deduct from the amount of the tax payable by them on
taxed transactions the amount of the tax which they have paid                  Directive 76/768/EEC ( 2) on the approximation of the
on purchases of goods or supplies of services used, within the                 laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products;
limit of a proportion calculated according to the procedures
defined in Article 19.                                                   —     order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
                                                                               the costs.
The French legislation provides for a limit on the deduction of
VAT payable on assets financed by subsidies in certain
conditions not provided for in the Sixth Directive. The system           Pleas in law and main arguments
established by the French legislation for mixed taxable persons
precludes entitlement to deduct the VAT paid on the purchase
of capital goods to the extent of the proportion of that
                                                                         Article 4a of Directive 76/768/EEC, introduced by Article 1(2)
purchase financed by a subsidy, if the proportion thus financed
                                                                         of Directive 2003/15/EC, prohibits the marketing of cosmetic
is not reflected in the price of the taxable transactions. This
                                                                         products where the final formulation, or which contain
exclusion, which concerns purchases of goods assigned to
                                                                         ingredients or combinations of ingredients which have been
activities coming within the scope of the directive, takes affect
                                                                         the subject of animal testing and prohibits the performance on
before any application of the proportion of deduction and
                                                                         their territory of animal testing of finished cosmetic products
reduces the amount of VAT to which that proportion is
                                                                         and of ingredients or combinations of ingredients. That
applied, where appropriate, for the purpose of calculating the
                                                                         prohibition is more severe than the prohibition which preceded
deductible VAT. However, derogations from the right to
                                                                         it and is incompatible with the rules of the World Trade
deduct are permitted only in the cases expressly provided for
                                                                         Organisation.
by the Sixth Directive. The French Government cannot rely on
Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April
1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States
concerning turnover taxes, which provides that VAT is charge-            The French Government is seeking the annulment of
able after deduction of the amount of VAT borne directly by              Article 1(2) of the directive in so far as it infringes the principle
the various costs components, to justify such limitation of the          of legal certainty. The Community legislature has disregarded
right to deduct.                                                         the requirement of legal certainty, since it has failed to define
                                                                         clearly and precisely the scope of Article 4a and has used in
                                                                         several places the imprecise expression ‘in order to meet the
It also appears that the French authorities apply the same               requirements of this Directive’. Article 4a gives rise to sensitive
limitation of deduction to taxable persons who carry out only            questions of interpretation and, consequently, the Member
transactions giving rise to the right to deduct.                         States are likely to transpose the amending directive into their
                                                                         domestic legal systems in divergent ways. Secondly, the
                                                                         requirement of legal certainty is even more important where it
( 1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
                                                                         is sought to impose obligations on individuals. In the present
                                                                         case, the lack of precision and the unclear nature of Article 4a
                                                                         do not enable undertakings to determine what circumstances
                                                                         and legal relationships fall within the scope of that article.


title: Case C-188/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 22 March 2000 in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/15
however, authorise Finland to derogate from the provisions of                  training’issued by the Consulate General and who sub-
the said directives beyond what is specified in those points of                sequently held a temporary residence authorisation
the annex in question.                                                         restricted to vocational training activity with a specific
                                                                               employer fulfil the requirements of the second or third
Finland amended its legislation on excise duties by enacting                   indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-
the new Valmisteverotuslaki (Law on excise duties,                             Turkey Association Council on the development of the
1469/29.12.1994), which was intended to transpose Council                      Association if, from 1 October 1992 to 5 May 1997, he
Directive 94/74/EEC (3) into national legislation. Fuel duty was               was in the training relationship in question and received
amended by the Laki nestemäisten polttoaineiden valmiste-                      for that a monthly training remuneration?
verosta (Law on excise duty on liquid fuels, 1472/29.12.1994).
That law partly transposed Directives 92/81/EEC and                       2.   Does a Turkish national who is the child by birth of
92/82/EEC into national legislation. Neither in this connection                former Turkish workers in the host country fulfil the
nor subsequently was the use in motor vehicles of light fuel                   requirements of the second paragraph of Article 7 of
oil, intended for heating expressly prohibited. With respect to                Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council
that light fuel oil, no provisions or rules on fiscal control are              on the development of the Association if he was adopted
laid down either in legislation or administrative regulations.                 as an adult by German nationals with the effects of
Nor are there any provisions or rules on fiscal control with                   adoption of a minor and his kinship to his natural parents
respect to the distribution of light fuel oil intended for heating.            has thereby ceased to exist? It is sufficient in that respect
There is no control at all with respect to the distribution of                 that he was the child of Turkish workers at the time of
light fuel oil intended for heating, and the minor checks done                 his parents’ legal employment and at the start of his
alongside police road traffic control may not be regarded as                   vocational training?
comprehensive fiscal control with respect to use.
                                                                          3.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
                                                                               second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
Light fuel oil is obtainable in Finland, especially in thinly                  EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
populated areas, from service stations, which can sell it without              the Association if, eight years after leaving the host
fiscal control to anyone. As in Finland no controls are carried                country together with his parents who at that time were
out at all in such cases and there are no sanctions on the                     leaving definitively, he re-entered the country (without
activity of retailers, Finland cannot disclaim its obligation to               his parents) for the purpose of vocational training?
transpose Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC in its national
legislation in all respects. It must also be stressed that Finland        4.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
has not been granted any derogation from the fiscal control                    second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
required in the said directives.                                               EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
                                                                               the Association if he did not take the last part of the final
(1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.                                             examination in the host country, but in his country of
(2) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 19.                                             origin before the host country’s examining board which
(3) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 46.                                             had travelled there?
                                                                          5.   Is it compatible with Article 6 or the second paragraph
                                                                               of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                               Association Council that, in a case where deportation has
                                                                               taken place, residence authorisation must be refused, by
                                                                               virtue of the prohibitive effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the
                                                                               Ausländergesetz (Law on Aliens, AuslG), until a time-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                       limit has, upon application, been placed on the effects of
gericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 22 March 2000                      the deportation?
in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land Baden-
                          Württemberg
                         (Case C-188/00)
                         (2000/C 247/18)
                                                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court) Karlsruhe of 22 March 2000, which                                          (Case C-224/00)
was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:                                                     (2000/C 247/19)
1.    Does a Turkish national who, with the approval of the               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      competent authority for aliens, entered the country                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
      with a visa ‘valid only for the purpose of vocational               2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2004 in Case T-139/02, Idiotiko Institouto Epaggelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epaggelmatikes Scholes AE, Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epaggelmatikis Katarsis and Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epaggelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katarstisis v Commission of the European Communities (Structural Funds — Community support — Operational programme — Commission's reply to a request for amendment of a decision approving an operational programme — Action for annulment — Direct allocation — Inadmissible)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 March 2004
   in Case T-139/02, Idiotiko Institouto Epaggelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epaggelmatikes Scholes AE, Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epaggelmatikis Katarsis and Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epaggelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katarstisis v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Structural Funds - Community support - Operational programme - Commission's reply to a request for amendment of a decision approving an operational programme - Action for annulment - Direct allocation - Inadmissible)
   (2004/C 118/87)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case T-139/02, Idiotiko Institouto Epaggelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epaggelmatikes Scholes AE, Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epaggelmatikis Katarsis and Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epaggelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katarstisis, estalblished in Athens, Greece, represented by T. Antoniou and C. Tsiliotis, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou-Durande and L. Flynn) - Application for an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 27 February 2002 not to remove the alleged discrimination between private and public professional training bodies in Greece in regard to their access to financing from the structural funds provided for by the third Community support network and in particular the operational programme Initial Education and Professional Training - the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 March 2004, in which it

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C169 of 13.7.2002


title: Case C-413/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association — Jurisdiction of local courts — No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL
   (Case C-413/12) (1)

   (References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association - Jurisdiction of local courts - No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2014/C 45/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León

      Defendant: Anuntis Segundamano España SL

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain — Interpretation of Articles 4, 12, 114 and 169 TFEU, Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) and of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms — Preventive action brought in the collective interest by a consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms — National rules of civil procedure conferring jurisdiction on the court of the place where the defendant has its address — National legislation excluding any appeal against an order declining jurisdiction

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national procedural rules under which actions for an injunction brought by consumer protection associations must be brought before the courts where the defendant is established or has its address and whereby no appeal lies against a decision declining territorial jurisdiction handed down by a court of first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case C-443/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/13/EC — Limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds — Failure to transpose the concepts of small installation and substantial change )

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-443/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/13/EC - Limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds - Failure to transpose the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’)
   2009/C 153/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the all the laws and regulations necessary to correctly transpose Article 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1) — Concept of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to correctly transpose Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, of 10.1.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y (C-71/11), Z (C-99/11) (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status — Article (2)(c) — Classification as a ‘refugee’ — Article 9(1) — Definition of ‘acts of persecution’ — Article 10(1)(b) — Religion as ground for persecution — Connection between the reasons for persecution and the acts of persecution — Pakistani nationals who are members of the Ahmadiyya religious community — Acts by the Pakistani authorities designed to prohibit the manifestation of a person’s religion in public — Acts sufficiently serious for the person concerned to have a well founded fear of being persecuted on account of his religion — Individual assessment of the facts and circumstances — Article 4)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/5

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y (C-71/11), Z (C-99/11)
      (Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11) (1)

      (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status - Article (2)(c) - Classification as a ‘refugee’ - Article 9(1) - Definition of ‘acts of persecution’ - Article 10(1)(b) - Religion as ground for persecution - Connection between the reasons for persecution and the acts of persecution - Pakistani nationals who are members of the Ahmadiyya religious community - Acts by the Pakistani authorities designed to prohibit the manifestation of a person’s religion in public - Acts sufficiently serious for the person concerned to have a well founded fear of being persecuted on account of his religion - Individual assessment of the facts and circumstances - Article 4)
      (2012/C 331/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

         Defendants: Y (C-71/11), Z (C-99/11)

         Other parties: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Bundesbeauftragter für Asylangelegenheiten beim Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Articles 2(c) and 9(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refuges or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p.12) — Conditions for qualifying as a refugee — Sufficiently severe nature of an act of persecution — Acts by the Pakistani authorities seeking to restrict the activities of the Ahmadiyya religious community

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 9(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or Stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that:

                              —

                              not all interference with the right to freedom of religion which infringes Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is capable of constituting an ‘act of persecution’ within the meaning of that provision of the Directive;

                              —

                              there may be an act of persecution as a result of interference with the external manifestation of that freedom, and

                              —

                              for the purpose of determining whether interference with the right to freedom of religion which infringes Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union may constitute an ‘act of persecution’, the competent authorities must ascertain, in the light of the personal circumstances of the person concerned, whether that person, as a result of exercising that freedom in his country of origin, runs a genuine risk of, inter alia, being prosecuted or subject to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by one of the actors referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2004/83.

                  2.

                  Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that the applicant’s fear of being persecuted is well founded if, in the light of the applicant’s personal circumstances, the competent authorities consider that it may reasonably be thought that, upon his return to his country of origin, he will engage in religious practices which will expose him to a real risk of persecution. In assessing an application for refugee status on an individual basis, those authorities cannot reasonably expect the applicant to abstain from those religious practices.

         (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

         OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case T-27/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Elan v Commission

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/20

         Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Elan v Commission
   (Case T-27/13)
   2013/C 86/34
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Elan, proizvodnja športnih izdelkov, d.o.o. (Begunje na Gorenskem, Slovenia) (represented by: P. Pensa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 2 to 5 of Commission Decision of 19 September 2012 on the measures in favour of the undertaking ELAN d.o.o., SA.26379 (C 13/2010);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: breach of the duty to give reasons (Article 296 TFEU, second paragraph) and breach of essential procedural requirements for want of reasons (Article 263 TFEU, second paragraph)
               The Commission has given inadequate reasons to explain why it ascribes to the State the capital contribution made by the companies Zavarovalnica Triglav and Triglav Naložbe. What is more, it has not explained why it did not accept the transfers within the marine division of the company Elan as proper compensatory measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of a manifest error in the assessment of the facts with regard to the existence of State resources and because the Commission ascribed to the State the conduct of the companies Zavarovalnica Triglav, Triglav Naložbe and KAD-PPS
               In the first place, the Commission committed a manifest error in assessing the facts with regard to the control and influence of the State over the Zavod za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje (ZPIZ) [Institute for pension and invalidity insurance] and hence over the companies Zavarovalnica Triglav and Triglav Naložbe. In the second place, the Commission has not mentioned any of the indicators necessary, in accordance with the Stardust Marine case-law (Case C–482/99 France v Commission [2002] ECR I–4397), if it is to be possible to ascribe to the State the conduct of the companies FAD-PPS, Zavarovalnica Triglav and Triglav Naložbe, quite overlooking the fact that the private companies Zavarovalnica Triglav e Triglav Naložbe exercised negative control over Elan.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU with regard to the compatibility of the members’ conduct with the principle of the private investor operating in a market economy by reason of an obviously incorrect assessment of the facts in respect of the decision-making of the members before recapitalising and putting measure No 2 into effect (recapitalisation of Elan in 2008)
               It is plain that the Commission wrongly took as established fact six decisive circumstances on the basis of which it concluded that measure No 2 was incompatible with the principle of the private investor operating in a market economy:

                           —

                           first, the Commission misleadingly took into consideration the worst appraisal of the value of Elan’s own capital, although four assessments had been made in the rapid appraisal of value;

                           —

                           second, arbitrarily and without an expert’s report, it rejected as out of date and irrelevant the appraisal of value made by the Audit-IN company, and without justification gave preference to the rapid appraisal of value;

                           —

                           third, it wrongly found that no private investor had played a part in the recapitalisation, although the proportion of private capital was at least 35.05 %;

                           —

                           fourth, the Commission wrongly found that the long-term plan 2008-2012 and the recovery plan had been drawn up by Elan itself, for it completely disregarded the fact that the basis for the preparation of the recovery plan for Elan was the reorientation strategy devised for the company by an external consultant;

                           —

                           fifth, the finding that no agreement had been reached with the banks regarding the reprogramming of loans in existence before the recapitalisation is incorrect too, for it is evident that the Commission disregarded the evidence showing that the banks confirmed to Elan that they would consolidate the loans if the members of Elan would recapitalise the company;

                           —

                           sixth, the Commission’s assertion that the recapitalisation of Elan in 2007 was unsuccessful and that for that reason private shareholders would no longer invest in Elan is untrue.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: manifest error in assessing the facts with regard to the compensatory measures referred to in points 38 to 40 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
               The Commission found, plainly incorrectly, that Elan had not put proper compensatory measures into effect and therefore misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty:

                           —

                           in the first place, the Commission disregarded the fact that the reorientation strategy explicitly states that in an emergency the distribution company in the United States of America would be put into liquidation;

                           —

                           in the second place, the Commission was wrong to say that it was on the initiative of the firm Dal Bello that collaboration in the common distribution company was brought to an end;

                           —

                           in the third place, the Commission without justification failed to take into consideration the effect of the compensatory measures relating to the retail ski market on Elan’s ‘chief’ business, that of manufacturing skis.


title: Case T-64/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/28

         Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
   (Case T-64/12)
   2012/C 98/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) and Henkel France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and E. Paroche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Commission of 7 December 2011 in Case ‘COMP/39579 — Consumer Detergents’, pursuant to which the defendant has dismissed the applicants’ request to transfer documents produced in case COMP/39579 to the French Autorité de la Concurrence with respect to its case 09/0007F concerning the French detergents sector;

               —

               Order the defendant to allow the applicants to rely on the requested documents in the proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeals in which the applicants challenge the decision of the French Autorité de la Concurrence of 8 December 2011 (or in proceedings before the Autorité de la Concurrence, should the latter decide to reopen its case);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               Take any other measures as the Court may consider appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant unlawfully dismissed the applicants’ request to transmit the requested documents or to allow the applicants’ use of the requested documents in the French proceedings, thereby infringing the applicants’ fundamental rights of defence, as well as its own duties under Article 4(3) TUE.


title: Case T-297/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Walter Klein v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/46

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Walter Klein v Commission
   (Case T-297/14)
   2014/C 223/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the support for renewable electricity and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it applies to the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the applicant states that energy-intensive users are not favoured by the arrangement. The special compensation regime is, instead, compensation for exceptional costs which affect the applicant and comparable users to a special degree in the context of the support for renewable electricity, and is intended to re-establish the competitiveness of energy-intensive users who were initially considerably adversely affected by the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue.

                           —

                           The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).


title: Case C-205/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy — France) — Fabien Nemec v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est (Social security for migrant workers — Article 42 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 58 — Allowance for workers exposed to asbestos — Calculation of cash benefits — Refusal to take account of pay earned in another Member State)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy — France) — Fabien Nemec v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est
   (Case C-205/05) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Article 42 EC - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 58 - Allowance for workers exposed to asbestos - Calculation of cash benefits - Refusal to take account of pay earned in another Member State)
   (2006/C 326/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fabien Nemec

      Defendant: Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy — Interpretation of Article 39 EC, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) and Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159) — Failure to take pay earned in another Member State into account when calculating the amount of the allowance for asbestos workers in the case where that pay has not been subject to national social security contributions
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 58(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, interpreted in accordance with the objective set out in Article 42 EC, requires that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, calculation of the ‘average wage or salary’, within the meaning of the first of those two provisions, takes into account the pay that the person concerned could reasonably have earned, given his subsequent employment record, had he continued to work in the Member State in which the competent institution is situated.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.


title: Case T-240/11: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2012 — L’Oréal v OHIM — United Global Media Group (MyBeauty TV) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Costs recoverable before OHIM — Costs of being represented by an employee — Article 85(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/31

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2012 — L’Oréal v OHIM — United Global Media Group (MyBeauty TV)
   (Case T-240/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Costs recoverable before OHIM - Costs of being represented by an employee - Article 85(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2012/C 287/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and S. Abel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: United Global Media Group, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 898/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between United Global Media Group, Inc. and L’Oréal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               L’Oréal SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case T-51/01: Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 186/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.6.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 28 February 2001 by François Vainker                   Under Articles 236 and 288 EC the first applicant claims
   and Brenda Vainker against the European Parliament                    damages for the loss allegedly caused to him by the disease
                                                                         and damages for the pain and suffering caused to him by the
                          (Case T-48/01)                                 defendant’s alleged mishandling of his request.
                         (2001/C 186/12)                                 The second applicant seeks damages for the pain and suffering
                                                                         which she claims to have suffered by the defendant’s alleged
                                                                         mishandling of her husband’s request.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 February 2001 by François Vainker and Brenda Vainker,
represented by John Grayston and André Bywater of Eversheds,
Brussels (Belgium).
The first applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay certain amounts in compen-
      sation to the first applicant;
                                                                                (Case T-51/01)
—     interest of 8 % on the amount eventually awarded under
      the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European                                    (2001/C 186/13)
      Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
      pational disease; and
—     any other award of interest payment which the Court                                   (Language of the case: French)
      thinks just and appropriate; and
—     either an annuity to the first applicant from the age of 62        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to compensate him for loss of pension rights, or, such             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      capital sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono.                 European Communities on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia,
                                                                         residing in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
The second applicant claims that the Court should:                       and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     order the defendant to pay certain amounts to the second
      applicant for the pain and suffering caused her by the
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      defendant’s conduct during the procedure concerning the
      application by the first applicant for recognition that the        —     annul the decisions not to retain him as acting Head of
      first applicant is suffering from an occupational disease                Unit during a period of restructuring and rejecting his
      and the request for compensation arising thereby, and for                application for the posts of Head of Unit of Units DG
      compensation under the said for non-reimbursed medical                   EAC/A/4, DG EAC/C/2 and DG EAC/C/5 and to reappoint
      expenses.                                                                him ad personam adviser in the Education and Culture
                                                                               Directorate-General;
The joint applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the joint applicants’ costs in
      their entirety, including this action before the Court.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant was Head of Unit at Directorate-General XXI-
The first applicant, a former official of the defendant, contrac-        I/A/4 ‘Promotion of linguistic ability, open and distance
ted an illness that later caused him to be placed on permanent           learning in education, adult education’. On 24 September
invalidity. He considers that this illness is an occupational            1999, the Commission decided to create a new ‘Education,
disease, contracted as a direct result of the institution’s failure      Audiovisual and Culture’ Directorate-General regrouping the
to put in place and/or maintain a safe system of work, and for           services of the former DG X (partially) and the former DG XXII
which he has requested recognition by the defendant as                   and reducing the number of Units from 39 to 28. The
well as compensation in respect thereof. According to the                applicant’s former Unit was divided into three new Units. The
applicants, this request was later granted, although the defend-         Commission decided to reject the applicant’s application for
ant has yet to complete the procedure in respect of the                  each of the three posts of Head of Unit and to reappoint him
compensation due.                                                        as ad personam adviser in the new Directorate-General.
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/9
The applicant challenges those decisions, alleging:                      In February 1996, a French company, Central Parts SA, lodged
                                                                         a complaint with the Commission against the applicant,
—     infringement of Articles 4, 5, 7, 25 and 29 of the Staff           according to which the applicant had taken steps to prevent
      Regulations,                                                       Central Parts SA from obtaining supplies for resale of JCB
                                                                         equipment from the applicant’s authorised distributors in the
—     breach of the principle of correspondence between grade
                                                                         United Kingdom.
      and post,
—     breach of the principle of entitlement to reasonable career
      prospects,
                                                                         According to the applicant, it had indeed taken such steps and
—     failure to have regard to the interests of the service,            had done so pursuant to express terms of its standard
                                                                         distributor agreement with its authorised distributors in the
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment,                        United Kingdom, this agreement having been notified, dis-
                                                                         cussed with and approved by the Commission in the 1970s.
—     breach of the duty to provide a proper statement of
      reasons, and
—     breach of the principle of sound management and proper             By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
      administration.                                                    applicant had infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by entering into
                                                                         agreements or concerted practices with authorised distributors,
                                                                         the object of which was to restrict competition.
                                                                         The applicant contends that the process leading up to the
                                                                         contested decision breached its fundamental rights of defence
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against                   and its rights under Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the European
       the Commission of the European Communities                        Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the applicant
                                                                         alleges that the Commission has failed to act within a
                                                                         reasonable time, has failed to behave impartially and to apply
                          (Case T-67/01)                                 the presumption of innocence and has denied the applicant
                                                                         access to documents on its file to which access should have
                         (2001/C 186/14)                                 been given.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
                                                                         fallen well short of establishing the alleged infringements to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                the requisite legal standard.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service,
Staffordshire (UK) represented by Richard Fowler QC, Rupert
Anderson, Barrister, Laura Carstensen and Marc Israel of                 The applicant also contends that it is plain from the case-law
Slaughter and May, London (UK).                                          on exclusive and selective distribution networks that the
                                                                         applicant’s distribution agreement, as notified to the Com-
                                                                         mission and subject to notified amendments, are eligible for
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         individual exemption, and the contested decision contains no
—     declare the Commission’s Decision C(2000) 3887 of                  reasoned grounds upon which these agreements should be
      21 December 2000 in Case COMP.F.1/35/918 — JCB                     denied exemption under Article 81(3).
      void and annul it in its entirety;
—     in the alternative, annul those parts of the Decision to the
      extent that the Court considers just and appropriate in            Finally, the applicant disputes the imposition of any fine. It
      the circumstances and to reduce the fine imposed on JCB            maintains that most if not all of the conduct wrongly
      accordingly;                                                       characterised by the Commission as infringing Article 81 is
                                                                         legitimate conduct referable to and within the scope of
—     order that all the costs of the application for annulment          the agreements notified to the Commission and that the
      should be paid by the Commission.                                  Commission is accordingly prevented by Article 15(5)(a) of
                                                                         Regulation No 17 from imposing any fine in respect of such
                                                                         conduct. In any event, the fine imposed is disproportionate.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant manufactures and supplies machinery and
associated parts for earthmoving, excavation, materials hand-
ling and agricultural purposes.


title: Case C-339/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc
   (Case C-339/09)
   2009/C 282/43
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skoma-Lux sro

      Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc

      Question referred

   Must goods labelled as ‘red dessert wine Kagor VK’, contained in 0.75 litre bottles with an alcohol content of 15.8 % — 16.1 % by volume, to which beet sugar and corn alcohol have been added during their manufacture, those substances not originating from fresh grapes, be classified under heading 2204 or heading 2206 of the combined nomenclature of the customs tariff?


title: Case T-279/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECB

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/61

         Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECB
   (Case T-279/06)
   (2006/C 294/122)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the ECB to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order ECB to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a bid in response to a call by the defendant for a negotiated tender for the provision of IT consultancy and IT development services to the European Central Bank (ECB) (OJ 2005/S 137-135354). The applicant contests the decision to reject its bid and to commence contractual negotiations with other bidders.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the ECB unlawfully did not disclose the weighting of criteria and sub-criteria in the tender notice and that the ECB used vague terms to evaluate negatively the applicant's bid and thereby violated the principles of transparency and sound administration and failed to state reasons. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the ECB made several errors of appreciation under the evaluation of the applicant's offer. Finally the applicant alleges that the ECB introduced a specific term in the call for tender, which favoured German established companies, and thereby violated among others Articles 12 EC and 49 EC.


title: Action brought on 13 June 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-199/96)

text:
No C 269/2            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
Application made on 15 July 1996 by SA Must Interim for                — Misuse of powers ( see Case C-123/96 )( ).
authorization to serve a garnishee order on the
                             Commission
                                                                       (')  OJ No   L 74 , 22 . 3 . 1996 , p . 13 .
                      ( Case C-l /96 SA )                              (2 ) OJ No   L 192 , 24 . 7 . 1990, p . 10 .
                                                                       (■') OJ No   C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 , p . 5 .
                           ( 96/C 269/03 )                             (4 ) OJ No   C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 , p . 19 .
An application for authorization to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities was
made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 15 July 1996 by SA Must Interim , represented by James
Junker, whose chambers are at 12 rue Sainte Zithe,                     Action brought on 18 June 1996 by the Commission of the
Luxembourg.                                                            European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
The applicant claims that the Court should authorize it to                                         ( Case C-206/96 )
serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European                                            ( 96/C 269/05 )
Communities relating to sums owed by the latter to
Transport Service International SARL, pursuant to an order
enforceable forthwith and prior to registration given on               An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
31 May 1996 by the President of the Tribunal                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European
d'Arrondissement          ( District    Court ),    Luxembourg,        Communities on 18 June 1996 by the Commission of the
authorizing it, pursuant to Article 558 of the Code de                 European Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and
Procedure Civile ( Code of Civil Procedure ), to serve a               J.-F . Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for service
garnishee order on the 'the European Commission , a body               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
under European law, whose representation in Luxemborug                 the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
is at the Jean Monnet Building, L-2920 Luxembourg' in                  Kirchberg.
relation to all sums, funds or assets that it owes or may
owe to Transport Service International SARL, which is                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
established and has its registered office at L-8055
Bertrange .                                                            — declare that, by not adopting programmes for the
                                                                            reduction of pollution which include quality objectives
                                                                            for water or by not communicating those programmes to
                                                                            the Commission in the form of summaries , together with
                                                                            the results of their implementation , contrary to Article 7
                                                                            of Council Directive 76/464/EEC ('), the Grand Duchy
                                                                            of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain                      the Treaty,
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                        ( Case C-199/96 )                                   costs .
                            ( 96/C 269/04 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 , a directive is
 European Communities on 13 June 1996 by the Kingdom of                 binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
 Spain, represented by Gloria Calvo Diaz , Abogado del                  State to which it is addressed . In respect of the substances
 Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               referred to in List II , the results to be achieved are the
 Spanish Embassy, 4 and 6 boulevard E. Servais .                        planning and implementation of programmes for the
                                                                        reduction of pollution , and the analysis and notification to
                                                                        the Commission of the actual results ( Article 7(1 ) and ( 6 ) of
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Directive 76/464/EEC ). According to the Commission , the
                                                                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not as yet — that is , 14
 — annul Commission Directive 96/ 1 9/EC ( 1 ) of 13 March              years after the expiry of the period prescribed for the
     1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC ( 2 ) with regard               establishment of the programmes, 10 years after the first
    to the implementation of full competition in                        letter on the subject was addressed to the Luxembourg
    telecommunications markets,                                         Government, and subsequent meetings with its
                                                                        representatives, and five years after the last list of priority
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .                              List II substances was drawn up — complied with its
                                                                        obligations under Article 7 of the Directive .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (') OJ No I. 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
 — Lack of competence of the Commission ( see Case
     C-ll /96 ) ( ').


title: Case C-131/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
   (Case C-131/17)
   (2017/C 168/32)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hélder José Cunha Martins, [the party against whom enforcement is sought]

      Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, [the party seeking enforcement]

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the context of an action for damages arising from a road-traffic accident, must a finding of joint and several liability on appeal by a higher court, without recourse being had to the principle of the immediacy of evidence and without all the grounds of defence being available, be considered to have been made in a fair and equitable hearing, as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               2.

               Is the attachment of goods in enforcement proceedings, without the action for recovery having been heard beforehand, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


title: Case C-92/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 28 February 2011 — RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 28 February 2011 — RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.
   (Case C-92/11)
   2011/C 211/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: RWE Vertrieb AG

      Respondent on a point of law: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms concerning price variations in gas supply contracts with consumers who are to be supplied outside the general obligation to supply gas and on the basis of the general freedom of contract (special customers) are not subject to the provisions of the directive if, in those contractual terms, the statutory provisions which apply to standard-rate customers within the framework of the general obligation to provide a connection and supply gas are incorporated unchanged in the contractual relationships with special customers?

               2.

               Are Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts — in so far as they are applicable — in conjunction with point 1(j) and the second sentence of point 2(b) of the annex referred to in Article 3(3) of that directive, and Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with points (b) and/or (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms concerning price variations in natural-gas supply contracts with special customers meet the requirements for plain and intelligible wording and/or possess the requisite degree of transparency if, although the grounds, preconditions and scope of a change in price are not set out, it is nevertheless ensured that the gas supply company informs its customers of every price increase in good time in advance and those customers have the right to terminate the contract by way of notice if they do not wish to accept the amended conditions of which they have been informed?

      (1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ L 176, p. 57.