title: Case C-44/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG (Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 56(1)(e) — Article 135(1)(f) and (g) — Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management))

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG
   (Case C-44/11) (1)

   (Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56(1)(e) - Article 135(1)(f) and (g) - Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management))
   2012/C 295/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst

      Defendant: Deutsche Bank AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56(1)(e) and Article 135(1)(f) and (g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets carried out for private clients

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A securities-based assets management service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely where a taxable person for remuneration and on the basis of his own discretion takes decisions on the purchase and sale of securities and implements those decisions by buying and selling the securities, consists of two elements which are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single economic supply.

               2.

               Article 135(1)(f) or (g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that securities-based asset management, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not exempt from value added tax under that provision.

               3.

               Article 56(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as covering not only the services referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Directive 2006/112, but also securities-based assets management services.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/15

         Election of the President of a Chamber composed of three Judges
   (2005/C 205/27)
   On 7 July 2005 the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Judge García-Valdecasas President of a Chamber sitting with three Judges for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2003 in Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé v European Parliament (Attachment of earnings procedure — Failure to pay to the attaching creditor deductions from salary made prior to termination of attachment of earnings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 275/45
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and L. Knudsen) — application for annulment of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                    decision of the Parliament not to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            corresponding to the deductions made from the salary of his
in Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission of                       ex-wife between March and November 1998 — the Court of
                the European Communities (1)                                First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                                                                            President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
(State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act —                        given a judgment on 15 July 2003, in which it:
                   Standing — Admissibility)
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible.
                         (2003/C 275/74)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar, residing in Madrid,
represented by F. Moreno Pardo, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and J. Flett) —
application under Article 232 EC for a declaration that the
Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing to adopt any decision whatever regarding the              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
complaint made by the applicant against the Kingdom of                                                    INSTANCE
Spain for infringement of Article 87 EC and by failing to
initiate the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC with
regard to the State aid allegedly granted by the Spanish                                             of 5 August 2003
authorities to Banco Español de Crédito SA — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, J. Pirrung,                 in Case T-79/03 R: Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO) v
P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                            Commission of the European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Payment of
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                 a fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/76)
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-79/03 R, Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO),
                                                                            established in Odolo (Italy), (lawyer: A. Giardina), supported
                          of 15 July 2003                                   by the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia) v Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignataro and
 in Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé v European Parliament                      A. Whelan) — application to suspend operation of the
                                                                            Commission Decision of 17 December 2002 relating to a
(Attachment of earnings procedure — Failure to pay to the                   proceeding under Article 65 CS (COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing
attaching creditor deductions from salary made prior to                     bars), in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 3,58 million on the
termination of attachment of earnings — Manifest inadmis-                   applicant, — the President of the Court of First Instance made
                               sibility)                                    an order on 5 August 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
                         (2003/C 275/75)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                            2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé, official of the European
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represent-
ed by A. Lorang, lawyer, with an address for service in


title: Case T-423/05: Action brought on  25 November 2005  — Olympic Airways Services S.A. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/21

         Action brought on 25 November 2005 — Olympic Airways Services S.A. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-423/05)
   (2006/C 74/42)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olympic Airways Services S.A. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, T. Soames, D. Geradin, S. Mavroghenis and S. Jordan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in whole or in part, in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC, Decision C11/2004, concerning State aid alleged to have been granted by Greece to Olympic Airways Services S.A.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   When the Greek state airline Olympic Airways was privatised, a new company (‘NOA’) began operating, taking over the flight operations, while the applicant (‘OA’) retained all other activities, principally ground handling, maintenance and aircraft repair. In the contested decision, the Commission found that Greece had granted to NOA and the applicant State aid that was incompatible with the Treaty, inter alia by reason of:

               —

               overvaluation of NOA's assets at the time when it was set up,

               —

               the making by the Greek State, as guarantor, of payments in respect of debts of OA,

               —

               the continuous forbearance displayed by the Greek State towards OA with regard to tax debts and social security contributions.

         By its action, the applicant contests first of all the part of the decision that relates to the supposed overvaluation of NOA's assets when it was set up. The applicant pleads infringement of Article 87(1) and (3) EC and Article 253 EC (duty to state reasons). It submits that the ‘private investor’ test was misapplied since the Hellenic Republic acted as any well-advised private businessman would act. It further contends that methodology and conclusions were mistaken in relation to the calculation of the amount of the supposed benefit. It also argues that the reasoning with regard to fulfilment of the conditions required in order for Article 87(1) EC to apply was deficient.
   So far as concerns the payment of sums by the State in respect of its debts, the applicant does not dispute that those payments were made, but considers that they do not involve elements of State aid and pleads in this regard that Article 87(1) EC has been infringed. More specifically, the applicant pleads that continuance of State aid, of which those payments by the Greek State form part, had been accepted by the Commission, and by the contested decision the Commission argues the contrary under a mistaken legal assessment. In the same context, the applicant contends that the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment in relation to the payments that were made before the alteration of certain guarantees and to the classification of certain payments by the State as State aid. The applicant also pleads, in relation to this part of the decision too, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, that is to say of the duty to state reasons.
   In relation to the finding in the contested decision that Greece displayed ‘continuous forbearance’ towards OA, the applicant submits that Community law was infringed as regards the meaning of State aid, because the Commission did not examine Greece's conduct in the light of the ‘private creditor’ test and failed to satisfy the burden of proof. It further pleads that there was a manifest error of assessment in relation to the calculation and the quantification of the supposed benefit and that the reasons stated were insufficient.
   Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of general principles of Community law, that is to say, first of all, the right to be heard, which it considers to have been infringed because of the Commission's refusal to grant the Hellenic Republic, and by extension the applicant itself as a directly affected party, access to the findings drawn up by a firm of auditors appointed by the Commission. The applicant further pleads infringement of the principle ‘non bis in idem’ because the contested decision has imposed interest, on the basis of the Community rate of interest, on the sums of aid which must be recovered, but the latter already include fines, interest and additional charges on the basis of the national provisions.


title: Case C-244/14: Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-244/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/34)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-159/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bourges (France) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bourges (France) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA
   (Case C-159/09)
   2009/C 180/46
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Bourges

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl SNC

      Defendant: Vierzon Distribution SA

      Question referred

   Is Article 3a of Directive 84/450 (1), as amended by Directive 97/55 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful to engage in comparative advertising on the basis of the price of products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, that is to say, products which are sufficiently interchangeable, on the sole ground that, in regard to food products, the extent to which consumers would like to eat those products, or, in any case, the pleasure of consuming them, is completely different according to the conditions and the place of production, the ingredients used and the experience of the producer?

      (1)  Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17).

      (2)  Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18).


title: Case T-106/10: Action brought on 4 March 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/71

         Action brought on 4 March 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-106/10)
   2010/C 113/105
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision C(2009) 10136 final of 18 December 2009 applying financial corrections to the support from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF allocated to the Community initiative CCI 2000 ES.060.0.PC.003 (Spain — Leader + Aragon), and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to the contested decision, the Commission applied a net financial correction of a flat rate of 2 % to the expenditure declared by the Spanish authorities until 4 June 2008, which involves a reduction of the support from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF of EUR 652 674,70 with respect to expenditure for the programme mentioned below which was initially granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(2001) 2067 of 31 July 2001.
   The Kingdom of Spain submits that the decision should be annulled on the basis of two grounds:

               The first ground is based on an infringement owing to the incorrect application of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), in so far as the alleged irregularities justifying the financial correction imposed by the Commission do not in fact constitute an infringement of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 (2), because the obligation imposed by that provision, according to which the records relating to on-the-spot verifications must state the work done, does not necessarily require those records to contain a list of the checks made, where they may be easily ascertained.

               The second ground concerns the infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, applied in relation to the guidelines defining the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by the Commission staff in order to determine the financial corrections referred to in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (3). First, by applying that correction of 2 % of the expenditure, even though the information provided by the Spanish authorities to the Commission showed that the risk to the Fund was substantially less than that percentage. Second, by extending the period concerned by the correction, so that not only the expenditure declared until the period covered by the Commission audit (17 December 2004) was included, but also the expenditure up until the date of the bilateral meeting (4 June 2008).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).

      (3)  Document C (2001) 476 of 2 March 2001.


title: Case T-161/03: Action brought on 5 May 2003 by Cascades SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.7.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the temporary staff. By decision of 14 July 2002, the Selection
                                                                          Board did not enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list.
                                                                          That decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance in
The applicant in these proceedings objects to the two-year                Case T-102/01 Pérez-Díaz v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
delay in receiving his staff report in respect of the period              In order to comply with that judgment, the Selection Board
between July 1995 and June 1997 and to the contents thereof,              decided to organise fresh oral tests in which the applicant took
by comparison to the preceding reports.                                   part while nevertheless reserving his position as to its validity.
                                                                          The selection board decided that the applicant’s results in the
                                                                          new tests were not sufficient to enable him to be entered on
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges failure to fulfil         the reserve list.
the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, manifest error
of assessment, misuse of powers and irregular procedures.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant puts forward five
                                                                          pleas in law alleging:
                                                                          —     infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations inasmuch as the contested decision was
                                                                                inadequately reasoned;
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Orlando Pérez-Díaz                     —     infringement of Article 233 of the EC Treaty and of the
    against Commission of the European Communities                              principles of equal treatment and objectivity in making a
                                                                                choice from among the candidates inasmuch as the
                         (Case T-156/03)                                        applicant’s performance was allegedly assessed under
                                                                                conditions and according to criteria which were different
                                                                                to those employed in respect of the other candidates;
                         (2003/C 171/62)
                                                                          —     breach of the principles of ‘restitutio in integrum’ and of
                   (Language of the case: French)                               equal treatment inasmuch as the applicant was required
                                                                                to re-sit the first and third stages of the oral test and give
                                                                                his views, in the second part of the second stage, on
                                                                                current scientific developments which had taken place
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       since the original tests;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Orlando Pérez-                   —     infringement of Article 233 of the EEC Treaty, inasmuch
Díaz, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,                   as the members of the new Selection Board had insuf-
lawyer.                                                                         ficient knowledge of the Spanish language to be able to
                                                                                assess the candidate’s abilities;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     breach of the principle of ‘restitutio in integrum’ inas-
                                                                                much as the composition of the new selection board was
—     annul the decision of the Selection Board in COM/R/A/1/                   not as close as possible to that of the original board.
      1999 not to enter his name in the reserve list for that
      selection, notified to him by letter of 21 January 2003
      from the Head of Personnel in the Research Directorate
      General of the Commission in the name of the Chairman
      of the Selection Board;
—     order the Commission to pay him, by way of compen-                  Action brought on 5 May 2003 by Cascades SA against
      sation for the non-material damage and damage to his                       the Commission of the European Communities
      career suffered by him as a result of the unlawfulness of
      the contested decision damages at a level to be assessed
                                                                                (Case T-161/03)
      by the Court of First Instance;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                         (2003/C 171/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant, an agent for the Centre for the Development of             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Enterprise, applied to take part in selection procedure COM/R/            European Communities on 5 May 2003 by Cascades SA,
A/01/1999 organised by the defendant with a view to                       established in La Rochette (France), represented by Jacques
establishing a reserve list for the recruitment of members of             Buhart and Pierre-M. Louis, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Commission to make good the damage suffered               —     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 May 2002
       by it as a result of incomplete compliance with the                       definitively recruiting the applicant in Grade A 7 at step 3;
       judgment of the Court of 28 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant took up his duties as a probationary official on
                                                                           1 August 2001 and was provisionally recruited at step 1 in
                                                                           grade A 7. The applicant made a request for recruitment at a
                                                                           higher grade. That request was refused.
The applicant has brought this action seeking a declaration
that the Commission is liable for failing to comply entirely
with the judgment of the Court ( 1) reducing the amount of the             In support of his application the applicant submits that there
fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission in decision                was a breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations in so far
94/601/CE (Plasterboard), relating to a proceeding pursuant to             as the Commission did not take account of the specific
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833-Plasterboard) ( 2).               requirements of the service. The applicant also submits that
                                                                           there was a manifest error of assessment.
In the applicant’s view, the Commission should still pay the
interests due on the difference between the sum paid and the
amount of the fine finally fixed by the Court of First Instance
together with the costs, agreed by common accord of the
parties at EUR 50 000. The defendant incurs non-contractual
liability for the damage arising therefrom.                                Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
( 1) Case T-308/94 Cascades SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
( 2) OJ 1991 L 243, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case T-169/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/65)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
        the Commission of the European Communities                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., represented by Alessandro
                                                                           Ruo, lawyer.
                          (Case T-162/03)
                                                                           Sissi Rossi s.r.l. was also a party to the proceedings before the
                          (2003/C 171/64)                                  Board of Appeal.
                    (Language of the case: French)                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
                                                                                the trade marks in question with regard to all the goods
                                                                                referred to and annul the contested decision at issue; in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the alternative, declare that the trade marks are inconsist-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     ent with each other so far as concerns ‘ladies’ bags’ and
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot, residing in                       ‘ladies’ shoes’ and declare that there is an affinity between
Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,                       such goods;
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-459/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/48

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council
   (Case T-459/07)
   (2008/C 51/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd (Hangzhou City, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines published in OJ L 272/1 of 17 October 2007 in so far as it is applicable to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the procedural costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Chinese company, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1) in so far as these measures apply to the applicant.
   In support of its application, the applicant contends that the Council's view that all CFL-i were the same product no matter their differences like lifetime, wattage, cover, other integrated devices, length, diameter, diagonal or end user, is incorrect.
   The applicant further alleges that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment when calculating the dumping margins, undercutting margins and injury thresholds. The methodology by which data was extrapolated from Eurostat data was, according to the applicant, not explained in the contested regulation and the Council should have provided the parties to the investigation with a non-confidential summary of the methodology used and examples of calculations.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that its right to be heard with regard to the choice of the analogue country has been violated, as the applicant was not given the possibility during the investigation leading up to the adoption of the contested regulation to comment on the substitution of Mexico by Korea as the analogue country.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council breached Articles 7, 9 and 21 of the Basic Regulation (2) by imposing anti-dumping duties when the Community interest did not call for intervention.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Council breached Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation and committed a manifest error of assessment by imposing anti-dumping duties despite the fact that the complaint initiating the investigation was not supported by the Community industry since the part of Community producers opposing the complaint represented more than 50 % of the total Community production of the like product.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case T-323/09: Action brought on 18 August 2009 — Commission v Irish Electricity Generating

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/28

         Action brought on 18 August 2009 — Commission v Irish Electricity Generating
   (Case T-323/09)
   2009/C 256/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.– M. Rouchaud-Joët, F. Mirza, agents)

      Defendant: Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd (Waterford, Ireland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendant to pay the Commission of the European Communities the sum due of EUR 237 384,31 being the principal amount of EUR 180 664,70 together with EUR 56 719,61 as late payment interest calculated at the European Central Bank rate +3.50 % (5.56 %) for the period between 25 August 2003 and 15 April 2009;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 27,52 per day by way of interest from 16 April 2009 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under the European Community’s Fourth Research Framework Programme, the Council adopted Decision No 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 (1) to set up a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy. Article 5 of the decision charged the Commission with the responsibility for drawing up a work programme covering the objectives and contents specified in Annex 1 of the Decision, and for issuing for calls and proposals for projects on the basis on the work programme.
   On 2 March 1998, following a tender procedure, the contract No WE/178/97/IEGB (hereinafter: “the contact”) for the construction of two wind turbines was attributed to the defendant. In accordance with the contract terms, the Commission agreed, from the total estimated eligible costs of the project amounting to ECU 1 531,697, to grant a financial support of 40 % of the approved eligible costs of the project up to a maximum of ECU 612,679.
   However, the applicant argues, that despite the fact that it advanced to the defendant, between 6 April 1998 and 30 April 2001 the sum of EUR 225 083,79, the defendant did not implement the contract. Moreover, the applicant claims that despite the fact it took the procedural steps required under the contract and the Community Budget Rules (2) to establish the amount of the debt and to notify it to the defendant, the latter did not react. Hence, by letter of 13 December 2002, the Commission terminated the contract pursuant to Article 5.3 a) i) of Annex II to the contract.
   Accordingly, the Commission brought the present application, pursuant to Article 238 EC in order to seek reimbursement of the amount allegedly overpaid to the defendant, which is EUR 180 664,70, plus interest calculated at the rate of 5,56 % from the date on which the debt fell due, i.e. 24 August 2003.

      (1)  Décision du Conseil, du 23 novembre 1994, arrêtant un programme spécifique de recherche, de développement technologique, y compris de démonstration, dans le domaine de l'énergie non nucléaire (1994-1998) (JO L 334 du 22.12.1994, p. 87)

      (2)  Article 71 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 p. 1) and Article 78 of its implementing Regulation, Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)


title: Case C-479/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/46

         Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-479/13)
   2013/C 344/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2)

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 7 % from 1 January 2012, then of 5.5 % from 1 January 2013, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.
   The Commission claims that under the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of the VAT directive, reduced rates of VAT may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. Category 6 of Annex III to the VAT directive does not mention the supply of digital books as being capable of being subject to a reduced rate of VAT. The Commission infers from that that the supply of electronic books must therefore be subject to the normal rate of VAT in accordance with Article 96 of the VAT directive. That is also confirmed, according to the Commission, by the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT. Finally, in support of its action, the Commission claims that the VAT Committee unanimously adopted, on 9 February 2011, guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).


title: Case F-116/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Buckingham and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Second round promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Transitional provisions — GIP for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Admissibility)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Buckingham and Others v Commission
   (Case F-116/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - ‘Second round’ promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Award of priority points - Transitional provisions - GIP for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Admissibility)
   (2009/C 32/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Anne Buckingham (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and Katarzyna Herrmann, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — Annulment of the Commission decision of 23 November 2005, published in Administrative Notices No 85-2005, in that it did not allocate to the applicants, officials in grade A*12, any priority points in recognition of the work carried out in the interests of the institution during the 2004 reporting period
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 66.


title: Case F-73/15: Action brought on 6 May 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/50

         Action brought on 6 May 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-73/15)
   (2015/C 245/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Mr Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to grant daily subsistence allowance to the applicant following his transfer from the Commission, where he was posted to the EU’s delegation in Yemen, to the European Parliament in Brussels.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of 8 July 2014;

               —

               where appropriate, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 3 February 2015;

               —

               order the Parliament to grant the daily subsistence allowance to the applicant, together with interest from the dates on which those amounts became payable pursuant to Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-109/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — National legislation providing for a reduced rate for musical ensembles and soloists provided the latter organise the concert themselves)

text:
13.12.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 304/7
3.    Protocol No 2 concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing        1.    Articles 1(4)(k) and 6(8) of Council Directive 90/496/EEC of
      the European Community and the Protocol concerning                           24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs must
      Article 141 EC annexed to the EC Treaty are to be interpreted                be interpreted as meaning that, first, the value of a nutrient
      as precluding the application of Article 119 of the Treaty and               such as vitamin C which is indicated on a foodstuff following
      Article 141(1) and (2) EC respectively to benefits provided                  an analysis of the foodstuff carried out by the manufacturer
      under an occupational social security scheme payable in respect              may correspond to the value of that nutrient in the foodstuff in
      of periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, subject to the                question at the end of its minimum conservation period and,
      exception for workers or those claiming under them who have                  second, that the determination of the permissible differences
      before that date initiated legal proceedings or raised an                    between the value stated and the value established in the course
      equivalent claim under the applicable national law.                          of an official check is, in the present state of Community law,
                                                                                within the competence of the Member States.
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                    2.    Consideration of the third question has not disclosed any factor
                                                                                of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 90/496.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 23 October 2003
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-40/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-                                               of 23 October 2003
reich): Margareta Scherndl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft
                            Korneuburg (1)
                                                                             in Case C-109/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
(Directive 90/496/EEC — Nutrition labelling of foodstuffs
— Vitamin content — Declared value — Average value
— Reference date — Permissible differences between the                       (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth
declared value and the value established in the course of an                 VAT Directive — National legislation providing for a
     official check — Proportionality — Legal certainty)                     reduced rate for musical ensembles and soloists provided the
                                                                                latter organise the concert themselves)
                           (2003/C 304/09)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/10)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-40/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-                    In Case C-109/02, Commission of the European Communities
reich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  (Agents: E. Traversa and G. Wilms) v Federal Republic of
pending before that court between Margareta Scherndl and                     Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma): Application
Bezirkshauptmannschaft Korneuburg, on the interpretation                     for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value
and validity of Articles 1(4)(k) and 6(8) of Council Directive               added tax to services provided directly to the public by musical
90/496/EEC of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for                   ensembles or for a concert organiser and to services provided
foodstuffs (OJ 1990 L 276, p. 40), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                directly to the public by soloists, but applying the standard
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     rate of that tax to the services of soloists working for an
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                 organiser, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which                 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
it has ruled:                                                                on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           13.12.2003
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                        Administration des douanes et droits indirects and Rioglass SA,
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended                Transremar SL on the interpretation of Article 28 EC, the
by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999 amending,                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
with regard to the level of the standard rate, Directive 77/388              of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
(OJ 1999 L 139, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                  F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo,
of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                 Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
A. La Pergola and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  which it has ruled:
on 23 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                             Article 28 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the implementation,
1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to        pursuant to a legislative measure of a Member State concerning
      services provided directly to the public by musical ensembles or       intellectual property, of procedures for detention by the customs
      for a concert organiser and to services provided directly to the       authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State
      public by soloists, but applying the standard rate of that tax to      and intended, following their transit through the territory of the first
      the services of soloists working for an organiser, the Federal         Member State, to be placed on the market in a non-member country.
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Council
      Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
      ment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of
      25 May 1999 amending, with regard to the level of the
      standard rate, Directive 77/388;
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 October 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-154/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Hässleholms tingsrätt): Jan Nilsson (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (International trade in endangered species of wild fauna
                        of 23 October 2003                                   and flora — CITES — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 —
                                                                             Articles 2(w) and 8(3) — Notion of ‘worked specimen’ —
in Case C-115/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Stuffed animal — Concept of ‘specimen acquired more than
the Cour de cassation): Administration des douanes et                        50 years previously’ — Manner of acquisition — Exemption
      droits indirects v Rioglass SA, Transremar SL (1)                        — Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 — Articles 29 and 32)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent                                                   (2003/C 304/12)
effect — Procedures for detention under customs control —
Goods in transit intended for the market of a non-member
              country — Spare parts for motor cars)                                             (Language of the case: Swedish)
                           (2003/C 304/11)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-154/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by Hässleholms tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                             Jan Nilsson, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC)
In Case C-115/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary                       of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  L 61, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)


title: Case F-57/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pedeferri and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action — Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Inadmissibility — Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pedeferri and Others v Commission
   (Case F-57/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Inadmissibility - Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)
   2012/C 138/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Stefano Pedeferri (Mornago, Italy) and Others (represented by: G. Vistoli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Subject-matter of the case

   Application for recognition of the applicants’ status as servants

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 36.


title: Case T-197/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — FMC v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/45

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — FMC v Commission
   (Case T-197/06)
   (2006/C 212/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: FMC Corporation (Philadelphia, USA) (represented by: C. Stanbrook, Q.C., and Y. Virvilis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006, in so far as it applies to FMC Corporation; and

               —

               in the alternative reduce the fine imposed on FMC Corporation; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of these present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate, by which the Commission found that the applicant had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a cartel, which consisted mainly of exchanges between competitors of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices, agreements on reduction of production capacity in the EEA and monitoring of the anti-competitive arrangements.
   The applicant invokes two pleas in law in support of its application and contends in general that it is not liable for the infringements of its subsidiary Foret as it did not exercise a decisive influence over the subsidiary.
   Firstly, the applicant claims that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision is flawed both in law and in fact as:

               a)

               the Commission's conclusions were based on a misconstruction of the evidence, on wrongful discrimination in giving different weight to different sources of oral evidence, and generally on a manifest error of assessment;

               b)

               the Commission used the wrong legal test of control for the purposes of determining the applicant's responsibility for the infringement of Foret;

               c)

               the Commission used evidence which did not relate to the period of the alleged infringement; and

               d)

               the Commission used evidence which it had not notified to the applicant as forming the basis of the case against the company, thereby denying the applicant the opportunity of exercising its rights of defence.


title: Case T-235/01: Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Georgios Karavelis against the European Parliament

text:
24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 331/33
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Georgios                          Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Centre
          Karavelis against the European Parliament                      Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
                                                                         (CESD — Communautaire, Asbl) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                         (Case T-235/01)
                                                                                (Case T-238/01)
                         (2001/C 331/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/55)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
21 September 2001 by Georgios Karavelis, an official of the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
K. Tagaras.                                                              European Communities on 28 September 2001 by the Centre
                                                                         Européen pour la statistique et le développement Asbl (CESD
                                                                         — Communautaire, Asbl) established in Luxembourg, rep-
                                                                         resented by Dominique Grisay and Barbara Koops, lawyers,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     allow the application in its entirety and in respect of all
      the forms of order sought,                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the notification concerning the filling of vacancy           —     appoint a legal expert,
      No 9186 and the implied rejection by the defendant of
      the applicant’s administrative complaint of 11 May 2001,
                                                                         —     state, on the basis of the legal expert’s report, which
                                                                               expenses incurred by the applicant should be considered
—     order the defendant to bear the entire legal costs of both               ineligible, and accordingly what amount, if any, should
      parties irrespective of the outcome of the case.                         be repaid to the Commission by the applicant,
                                                                         —     alternatively, authorise the applicant to determine, on the
                                                                               basis of the audit carried out by its auditor, which
                                                                               amounts could properly be considered as ineligible by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the Commission’s internal audit services and, after hearing
                                                                               the parties, to revise the debit note sent by the Com-
                                                                               mission’s services on 16 August 2001, determining which
                                                                               ineligible amounts should be repaid to the Commission
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament promoted
                                                                               by the applicant,
to Grade A 4 from 1 January 2000, challenges the decisions
by which the defendant rejected his candidature for vacancy
No 9186 (the post of director of the Information Office in               —     order the Commission to pay the costs, including the
Athens, at Grade A 3) on the ground that, at the time of                       costs of the expert’s report.
submission of his candidature, he had not completed the
required two years’ service at the Grade of A 4. The applicant
submits that, since an application by him contesting the
decision not to promote him to Grade A 4 during the 1998
promotion procedure was pending before the Court of First
Instance, which, by judgment of 8 May 2001, found in his                 Pleas in law and main arguments
favour and annulled the relevant decision by the defendant,
the latter was obliged to demonstrate reasonable care and
extend the period for submission of candidatures and thus
take account of his candidature.                                         The applicant is a non-profit-making organisation the object
                                                                         of which is to implement technical cooperation projects in the
                                                                         field of statistics for the benefit of third countries. To that end,
                                                                         the applicant receives subsidies on the basis of an agreement
                                                                         concluded with the Commission.


title: Case C-290/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Article 59 and Annex XIII — Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure — Equal treatment)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/22

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-290/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 59 and Annex XIII - Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure - Equal treatment))
   2014/C 409/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


No C 142/ 16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                    matters before the Court of Justice, acting as Agent, with
Grande Instance de Dijon by judgments of that court of                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
26 February 1997 in the cases of Procureur de la                         Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais .
Republique and Syndicat de Defense de l'Epoisses and
Others against Yvon Chiciak and Jean-Pierre Fol
                                respectively                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  ( Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 )
                              ( 97/C 142/32 )                            — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in
                                                                                the Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97 (')
                                                                                of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                            for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may
Grande Instance de Dijon ( Regional Court, Dijon ) of                           be fished,
26 February 1997, which were received at the Court
Registry on 1 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
cases of Procureur de la République and Syndicat de Dé
fense de l'Epoisses, Institut National des Appellations
d'Origine Contrôlées ( INAO ), Association Nationale                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
d'Appellation d'Origine Laitière Française ( ANAOF)
against Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak ( Case                       The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
C-129/97) and Procureur de la République and Syndicat                    those in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
de Défense de l'Epoisses, Institut National des Appella
tions d'Origine Contrôlées ( INAO ), Association Nationale               (') OJ No L 66, 6 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .
d'Appellation d'Origine Laitière Française ( ANAOF) Sari .               ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
' Laiterie de la Côte', SA 'Fromagerie Henri Germain ' and
SA ' Fromagerie Berthaut' against Jean-Pierre Fol ( Case
C-130/97) on the following questions:
— Does Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 (')
       preclude as from its entry into force any residual
       power on the part of the Member States to alter a
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-23/96 ( 1 )
       preexisting designation of origin ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/34 )
— Do the particulars given in the form of footnotes to
      the annex to Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/                 By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Sixth
       96 ( 2 ) constitute an exhaustive list of parts of names          Chamber of the Court Of Justice of the European
       made up of several terms which as such are not                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       protected ?                                                       Case C-23/96 : Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         v. French Republic .
(') OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                              (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of                                  Removal from the register of Case C-46/95 ( ')
        Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/35
                            ( Case C-132/97 )
                              ( 97/C 142/33 )
                                                                         By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  removal from the register of Case C-46/95 : Commission
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Communities on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of                           Luxembourg.
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado
del Estado of the State Legal Department dealing with                    O OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .


title: Case T-353/11: Action brought on 29 June 2011 — Event v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/43

         Action brought on 29 June 2011 — Event v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS)
   (Case T-353/11)
   2011/C 252/94
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Event Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Köln, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL (Getxo, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2011 in case R 939/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the Applicant; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings, if it becomes intervener before the Tribunal to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6483606

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 39 548 073.6 of the word mark ‘Event’, for services in classes 35, 36, 42 and 43

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there were no grounds for a rejection of the Community trade mark application ‘eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS’. Given the similarity of the trade marks, and the similarity of the services covered by both trade marks, there is a likelihood of confusion between the two trade marks.


title: Case C-416/07: Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/16

         Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-416/07)
   (2007/C 283/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Eleni Tserepa-Lacombe and Friedrich Erlbacher)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures:

                           —

                           so that any transporter of animals is covered by an authorisation from the competent authority and is registered in a manner enabling the competent authority to identify him rapidly, in particular in the event of failure to comply with the rules governing the proper treatment of animals during transport;

                           —

                           so that the competent authorities carry out obligatory checks of the route plan/journey log;

                           —

                           so that animal rest facilities are provided for following unloading from vessels, in or near ferry ports;

                           —

                           so as to ensure that the inspections of the means of transport and the animals are actually carried out;

                           —

                           so that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are imposed in the event of repeated or serious infringements of the provisions relating to the protection of animals during transport,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(A)(1)(a)(i) and (ii), Article 5(A)(2)(b), the first indent of Article 5(A)(2)(d)(i) and Articles 8, 9 and 18(2) of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, under point 7(b) of Chapter VII of the annex to that directive and, from 5 January 2007, under Articles 5(4), 6(1), 13(3) and (4), 15(1), 25, 26 and 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (2) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97;

               2.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures:

                           —

                           to ensure observance of the rules governing the stunning of animals at the time of slaughter; and

                           —

                           to ensure appropriate inspections and controls in slaughterhouses,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 5(1)(d), 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC (3) of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing;

               3.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this action, the Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic is not implementing correctly certain provisions relating to the protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter.
   The Commission requests the Court to declare that, by having failed to adopt the legal measures and the necessary administrative measures to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 5(A)(1)(a)(i) and (ii), Article 5(A)(2)(b), the first indent of Article 5(A)(2)(d)(i) and Articles 8, 9 and 18(2) of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, in point 7(b) of Chapter VII of the annex to that directive and, from 5 January 2007, in Articles 5(4), 6(1), 13(3) and (4), 15(1), 25, 26 and 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 on the protection of animals during transport, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that legislation.
   The Commission also requests the Court to declare that, by having failed to adopt the legal measures and the necessary administrative measures to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 3, 5(1)(d), 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that legislation.
   The Commission points out that, in accordance with the Court of Justice's case-law, a failure to fulfil obligations may result from an administrative practice that infringes Community law. In the present action, the Commission relies not on an isolated finding of fact but on a significant number of cases which were discovered by its Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and constitute a structured and general infringement of the obligations of the Hellenic Republic under the abovementioned provisions.
   In particular, the Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not adopted all the necessary measures so that any transporter of animals is covered by an authorisation from the competent authority and is registered in a manner enabling the competent authority to identify him rapidly, in particular in the event of failure to comply with the rules governing the proper treatment of animals during transport, so that the competent authorities carry out obligatory checks of the route plan/journey log, so that animal rest facilities are provided for following unloading from vessels, in or near ferry ports, and so as to ensure that inspections of the means of transport and the animals are carried out.
   The Commission further submits that the Hellenic Republic has not adopted all the necessary measures to ensure observance of the rules governing the stunning of animals at the time of slaughter and to ensure appropriate inspections and controls in slaughterhouses.
   The Commission states that both on expiry of the period set in the reasoned opinion and after that date, and notwithstanding certain efforts on the part of the Greek authorities, the Hellenic Republic had not adopted all the measures necessary to make good the deficiencies alleged against it. The majority of the recommendations addressed to the Greek authorities were not implemented or were implemented inadequately. On the other hand, mission reports paint a very worrying picture regarding implementation of the abovementioned measures.

      (1)  OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.


title: Case C-315/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Indemnity in respect of customers — Conditions for granting — Acquisition of new customers — Concept of ‘new customers’ — Principal’s customers purchasing, for the first time, goods which the commercial agent was assigned to sell)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz
      (Case C-315/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2) - Indemnity in respect of customers - Conditions for granting - Acquisition of new customers - Concept of ‘new customers’ - Principal’s customers purchasing, for the first time, goods which the commercial agent was assigned to sell))
      (2016/C 211/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Marchon Germany GmbH

         Defendant: Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first indent of Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that customers brought in by the commercial agent for the goods that he has been assigned by the principal to sell must be regarded as new customers, within the meaning of that provision, in the case where, even though those customers already had business relations with that principal in relation to other goods, the sale, by that agent, of the first goods required the establishment of specific business relations, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-309/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Il Tribunale di Bergamo by order of that court of 28 June 2005 in D.I.A Srl in liquidation v Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Il Tribunale di Bergamo by order of that court of 28 June 2005 in D.I.A Srl in liquidation v Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA
   (Case C-309/05)
   (2005/C 243/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Il Tribunale di Bergamo of 28 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 2005, between D.I.A Srl in liquidation and Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA on the interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Council Directive 86/653 of 18 December 1986 for the reasons already set out by the Corte di Cassazione, Sezione Lavoro, in Order No 20410 (1) of 18 October 2004.

      (1)  Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali srl v Mariella De Z|otti (Case C-465/04) OJ C 31, of 05.02.2005, page 4.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-324/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster): Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt (Freedom of establishment — Tax provisions — Corporation tax — Covert distribution of profits — Tax credit — Coherence of the tax system — Tax evasion)

text:
C 31/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.2.2003
A. Dal Ferro) appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of
8 June 2000, in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/                                              (Fifth Chamber)
98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-
2193, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                                   of 12 December 2002
to the proceedings being: Camar Srl, established in Florence
(Italy), (avocats: W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà),               in Case C-324/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
applicant at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97                the Finanzgericht Münster): Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v
and T-117/98, Tico Srl, established in Padua (Italy), (avocats:                                    Finanzamt Steinfurt (1)
W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà), applicant at first
instance in Case T-117/98, Council of the European Union                     (Freedom of establishment — Tax provisions — Corporation
(Agent: by F. Ruggeri Laderchi), defendant at first instance in              tax — Covert distribution of profits — Tax credit —
Case T-260/97, French Republic (Agents: C. Vasak and G. de                             Coherence of the tax system — Tax evasion)
Bergues) intervener at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96
and T-260/97, and Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted                                          (2003/C 31/03)
by F. Quadri), intervener at first instance in Case T-79/96, —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                                     (Language of the case: German)
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                                   in the European Court Reports)
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the
                                                                             In Case C-324/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in
                                                                             EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary
which it:
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH and Finanzamt Steinfurt, on the
                                                                             interpretation of Article 43 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the
1.    Set aside the judgment of 8 June 2000 in the Court of First            Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
      instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98                A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
      Camar and Tico v Commission and Council in so far as it                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      allowed, in Case T-117/98, the application for annulment of            on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
      the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities
      of 23 April 1998 rejecting the application made by Camar Srl           Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as precluding a measure such as
      and Tico Srl on the basis of Article 16(3) of Council Regulation       that contained in Paragraph 8a(1), Head 2, of the Körperschaft-
      (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common                      steuergesetz (Law on corporation tax).
      organisation of the markets in the banana sector;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3.    Dismisses the application annulment in Case T-117/98 as
      inadmissible;                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
4.    Order Camar Srl and Tico Srl to pay the costs in Case T-117/           in Case C-385/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      98;                                                                    the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): F. W. L. de Groot v
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1)
5.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal               (Free movement of workers — Tax convention — Nether-
      proceedings.                                                                   lands rules on the avoidance of double taxation)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-385/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a


title: Case T-334/02: Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the company Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.2.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/17
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64) and secondly for
damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                  The applicant, a public limited company whose seat is
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a           in Athens, has as its business the production, packaging,
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:                                   standardisation and preservation of, and trade in, agricultural
                                                                             products. It was founded pursuant to an improvement plan
                                                                             drawn up under Regulations (EEC) No 355/77 and No 866/90
1.    Orders that Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 be joined for the              for co-financing by the European Community and the Greek
      purposes of the judgment;                                              State.
2.    Dismisses the applications;
                                                                             The applicant submits that, following the adoption of a
3.    Orders each of the applicants to bear its own costs, and pay           measure relating to the market by the Greek authorities, it was
      those incurred by the Commission in the case it has brought,           reduced to an extremely poor financial position and its
      including, in the case of the applicant in Case T-350/00, those        operation became problematic.
      incurred by it in the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                             By its application, it accuses the Commission of inaction and
4.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.                        delaying tactics since, notwithstanding the applicant’s repeated
                                                                             requests and its approaches to various Community authorities,
                                                                             the Commission failed:
( 1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01 and C 45 of 10.2.01.
                                                                             —      to abolish the Community financial assistance under
                                                                                Article 23 of Regulation No 4253/88 (1);
                                                                             —      to initiate, against the Hellenic Republic, the procedure
                                                                                under Article 226 EC for breach of Community law.
Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the company                             In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipo-                     infringed Regulation No 4253/88, exceeded the limits of
piisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton against the Com-                   its discretion and offended against the principle of equal
            mission of the European Communities                              treatment.
                           (Case T-334/02)                                   (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
                                                                                laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
                           (2003/C 31/25)                                         different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                                operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                                existing financial instruments (OJ No L 374, 31.12.1998, p. 1).
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 October 2002 by the company
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis                Action brought on 21 November 2002 by Air One S.p.A.
kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton, whose seat is in Athens                     against the Commission of the European Communities
(Greece), represented by Ioannis Stamoulis, of the Athens Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-344/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                               (2003/C 31/26)
—     allow the present application challenging the failure                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
      of the European Commission to abolish Community
      assistance;
—     declare that the European Commission has unlawfully                    An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
      failed to abolish the Community financial assistance;                  the European Communities on 21 November 2002 by the
                                                                             abovementioned applicant, represented by G. Belotti, against
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                        the Commission of the European Communities.