title: Case T-135/01: Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 275/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug against
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-112/01)
                           of 7 June 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 275/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug, residing in
(Officials — Re-assignment of the applicant to a third                     Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the
derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in
2000 on the basis of Annex X — Manifest inadmissibility                    —     annul the decision definitively establishing her staff report
   of the action directed against the Commission’s replies)                      for the period 1997-1999;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 275/21)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant in the present case contests certain assessments
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           contained in her staff report for the period 1997-1999.
                                                                           In support of her claim, she pleads:
In Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                    —     breach of the staff report procedure as laid down in the
bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for                      guidelines for staff reports published on 28 July 1989;
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                           —     a manifest error in the present case, resulting from
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment directed, first, against the measure contained in                  confusion between sick leave and absenteeism, as regards
                                                                                the assessments appearing under the heading ‘Consistency
one of the letters from the Director of the Publications Office
                                                                                of performance’.
sent to the applicant in reply to his request to be reassigned to
a third State, dated 6 June 2000, and, secondly, against the
implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 21 July 2000
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli
                                                                           S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Case T-135/01)
2.    The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating                              (2001/C 275/23)
      to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ 2000 C 285.
                                                                           ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l.
                                                                           and Fedon America USA Inc., represented by I. van Bael,
                                                                           A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, Avvocati.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/11
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
      pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other                The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
      sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the           of two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
      possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation       respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
      to pay additional duties, plus interest at the Italian             defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
      statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon            the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
      to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the            allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
      value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,           ance of 16 %.
      plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
      munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum           The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
      claimed;                                                           allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
                                                                         particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
—     order the Community to pay the costs.                              regard for his interests.
                                                                         He also submits that Article 19(i) of the Conditions of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                         The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United               principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the             Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures                 already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
affecting their industry.                                                allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
                                                                         employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
                                                                         not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in              objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and                    ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
Commission (1).                                                          is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
                                                                         different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
                                                                         education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.                                      of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
                                                                         pursuant to Article 17.
Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
              against the European Central Bank                          Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
                                                                         Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                         (Case T-152/01)
                                                                                (Case T-153/01)
                         (2001/C 275/24)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/25)
                   (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia             European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Mittländer, Lawyers.                                                     Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                         sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
      refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;                —     annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
                                                                               age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
—     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.                        therefore to apply that age limit to her;


title: Case C-306/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) by order of that court of 7 June 2005 in Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SL

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) by order of that court of 7 June 2005 in Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SL
   (Case C-306/05)
   (2005/C 257/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Provincial High Court, Barcelona) (Spain) of 7 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) and Rafael Hoteles SL on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the installation in hotel rooms of television sets to which a satellite or terrestrial television signal is sent by cable constitute an act of communication to the public which is covered by the harmonisation of national laws protecting copyright provided for in Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001?

               2.

               Is the fact of deeming a hotel room to be a strictly domestic location, so that communication by means of television sets to which is fed a signal previously received by the hotel is not regarded as communication to the public, contrary to the protection of copyright pursued by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001?

               3.

               For the purposes of protecting copyright in relation to acts of communication to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, can a communication that is effected through a television set inside a hotel bedroom be regarded as public because successive viewers have access to the work?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, of 22.6.2001 p. 10).


title: Case T-512/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Green Source Poland v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/50

      Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Green Source Poland v Commission
      (Case T-512/14)
      (2014/C 395/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2289 final of 7 April 2014 whereby the Commission refuse to grant a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the proposed major project ‘Purchase and implementation of innovative manufacturing technology of biocomponents to produce biofuels’, forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the convergence objective in Poland.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its power under Article 41 of Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) and breached the principles of legal certainty and proportionality in attributing de facto binding effect to a directive proposal not yet approved, i.e. the ILUC Directive proposal (2). The applicant submits that the refusal is in reality based not on the fact that the project lacked a high degree of innovativeness as a first generation production facility for production of biofuels from food-crops, but on the fact that the project was inconsistent with the ILUC Directive proposal, which promote second generation biofuels produced from crops other than food-crops. The Commission thus relied on future legislation to deny a contribution from the European Regional Development Fund.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in considering that the ILUC Directive proposal undermines the viability of the proposed plant. The applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that the long-term economic viability of the plant would be questionable as from 2020 based on speculations that after 2020 only biofuels produced from crops other than food-crops will receive financial support.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging abuse of procedure and breach of the principle of proportionality due to the inconsistent and artificial grounds successively invoked by the Commission to deny the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Regulation No 1083/2006 as the Commission, in its assessment, went beyond the criteria set out in the relevant operational programme thereby concluding that only ‘state of the art solutions’ and ‘the most innovative and newest solutions’ should be supported. However the operational programme only refers to new and modern solutions, which should be interpreted in light of the current degree of industrial and commercial development in Poland and of the overall objective to foster development of the region concerned.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of Regulation No 1083/2006 and breach of the principle of sound administration and due diligence and of the duty to state reasons.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging abuse of procedure and breach of the principles of reasonable delay and good administration, as well as infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down a three month time-limit for the adoption of decisions on major projects. The applicant contends that the Commission continuously invited Poland to withdraw its request and repeated the same questions or added new and unrelated questions dragging the proceedings on for over one year and a half, thereby lowering the chances of the proposed project to be implemented.

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

         (2)  Proposal COM(2012) 595 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.


title: Case F-162/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — CL v EEA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Sick leave — Reintegration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Psychological harrassment)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — CL v EEA
   (Case F-162/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Temporary staff - Sick leave - Reintegration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Psychological harrassment)
   2014/C 39/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: O. Cornu, Agent, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to reintegrate the applicant following sick leave after the date at which he should have been capable of work according to medical opinion.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               CL is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Environment Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013, p. 30.


title: Case C-510/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2008 — Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2008 — Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert
   (Case C-510/08)
   (2009/C 44/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vera Mattner

      Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert
   Question referred
   Are Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and Article 56 EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the charging of gift tax which, where land situated within the country is acquired by a non-resident person, provides for a tax-free amount of only EUR 1 100 for the non-resident acquirer, while on the gifting of the same land a tax-free amount of EUR 205 000 would apply, if at the time the gift was effected the donor or acquirer were domiciled in the Member State concerned?


title: Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-393/95)

text:
No C 31 / 16          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
Action brought on 8 December 1995 by the Commission of                       the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of
         the European Communities against Ireland                            insurance undertakings ( 1 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                       ( Case C-387/95 )                                     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
                                                                             the said Directive;
                           ( 96/C 31 /32 )
                                                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, and
Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal Service , acting as               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               in Case C-387/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit laid down by the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner,                      Directive expired on 1 January 1994 .
Kirchberg.
                                                                       H OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 7 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) See p. 16 of this Official Journal .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that by failing to notify the laws , regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 91 /674/EEC (') of 19 December 1991 on the
     annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance
     undertakings or by failing to adopt the measures                  Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission
     necessary to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its               of the European Communities against Ireland
     obligations under that Directive;                                                             Case C-394/95
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                                                ( 96/C 31 /34 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 1 5 December 1 995
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall            by the Commission of the European Communities,
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, and
Member State , carries by implication an obligation on the             Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal Service, acting as
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January               office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner .
1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission .                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 7 .
                                                                        1 . declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Council Directive 91 /371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 ( x ) on
                                                                              the implementation of the Agreement between the
                                                                              European Economic Community and the Swiss
                                                                              Confederation concerning direct insurance other than
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission                          life assurance or by failing to adopt the measures
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            necessary to comply with the said Directive, Ireland has
                               Belgium                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive ;
                        ( Case C-393/95 )
                                                                        2 . order Ireland to pay the costs.
                            ( 96/C 31 /33 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice on 15 December 1995 by the
                                                                        Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, under which a directive shall
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
 Dimitrios Gouloussis , acting as Agent, with an address for            Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
 service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz,            Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
 Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                        down in the Directive . That period expired on 4 July 1993
                                                                        without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           comply with the Directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                        the Commission .
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt, alternatively to
     communicate to the Commission , within the prescribed
                                                                         (') OJ No L 205 , 27. 7 . 1991 , p . 48 .
      timelimit the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to comply fully with
      Council Directive 91 /674/EEC of 10 December 1991 on


title: Case C-113/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, Austria, by order of that court of 17 March 1999 in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as insolvency administrator of the assets of the company P.P. Handels GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland

text:
3.7.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 188/9
19 January 1999 received at the Court Registry on 1 April                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
1999 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Toshiba Europe               ichtshof, Vienna, Austria, by order of that court of
GmbH against Katun Germany GmbH on the following                          17 March 1999 in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as
question:                                                                 insolvency administrator of the assets of the company
                                                                          P.P. Handels GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandes-
                                                                             direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
1. Is an advertisement by a supplier of replacement parts and
    user materials for an appliance manufacturer’s product to                                      (Case C-113/99)
    be regarded as comparative advertising within the meaning
    of Article 2(2a) of the directive if the advertisement states                                  (1999/C 188/20)
    the appliance manufacturer’s product numbers (OEM
    numbers) for the relevant original replacement parts                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    and consumables for reference purposes to identify the                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
    supplier’s products?                                                  of (Administrative Court), Vienna, Austria, of 17 March 1999,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 6 April 1999, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as insolvency
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:                    administrator of the assets of the company P.P. Handels
                                                                          GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
                                                                          Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the following question:
    (a) Does displaying the appliance manufacturer’s product              Does Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
        numbers (OEM numbers) alongside the supplier’s own                1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1)
        order numbers amount to a lawful comparison of the                preclude the levying for 1996 of the tax provided for
        goods under Article 3a(l)(c) of the directive, and in             by Paragraph 24(4) of the 1988 Körperschaftsteuergesetz
        particular a comparison of the prices?                            (Corporation Tax law) as amended by Federal law BGBl
                                                                          (Bundesgesetzblatt, Federal Law Gazette) No 680/1994?
    (b) Are the product numbers (OEM numbers) ‘dis-                       (1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.
        tinguishing marks of a competitor’ within the meaning
        of Article3a(l)(g)?
3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                          trative d’Appel (Administrative Appeal Court), Nancy
                                                                          (First Chamber), by judgment of that court of 25 March
    (a) What are the criteria to be used when assessing                   1999 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against Office
        whether an advertisement within the meaning of                         National Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.)
        Article 2(2a) takes unfair advantage of the reputation
        of a distinguishing mark of a competitor within the                                        (Case C-114/99)
        meaning of Article 3a(l)(g)?
                                                                                (1999/C 188/21)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    (b) Is the fact that the appliance manufacturer’s product             European Communities by judgment of the Cour Administrat-
        numbers (OEM numbers) appear alongside the sup-                   ive d’Appel, Nancy (First Chamber) of 25 March 1999, received
        plier’s own order numbers sufficient to justify an                at the Court Registry on 6 April 1999, for a preliminary
        allegation that unfair advantage is being taken of the            ruling in the case of Roquette Frères SA v Office National
        reputation of the distinguishing mark of a competitor             Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.) on the following
        under Article 3a(1)(g), if the third party competitor             question:
        could instead in each case indicate the product for
        which the replacement part or consumable is suitable?             Did the provisions in force on 1 March 1990 and, in particular,
                                                                          Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
                                                                          ember 1987 (1), in so far as it provides that the export refund
                                                                          is to be paid only if ‘the product has been actually placed on
    (c) When assessing unfairness, is it relevant whether a               the market in the non-member country of import in the
        reference (solely) to the product for which the consum-           unaltered state’, permit the body responsible for supervision
        able or replacement part is suitable — in lieu of a               (in this instance, the O.N.I.C.) to challenge the supplier’s
        reference to the product number (OEM number) — is                 entitlement to refunds on the sole ground that the goods
        likely to make it difficult to sell the supplier’s products,      delivered had been used by its foreign customer in the
        particularly because customers generally take their               preparation of another product, which was itself liable to be
        bearings from the appliance manufacturer’s product                re-exported to other Member States of the European Economic
        numbers (OEM numbers)?                                            Community?
                                                                          (1) Laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of
                                                                              export refunds on agricultural products.


title: Case T-172/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Gem-Year and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — Support of the complaint by the Community industry — Definition of the product concerned — Injury — Market economy treatment — Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Gem-Year and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council
   (Case T-172/09) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Support of the complaint by the Community industry - Definition of the product concerned - Injury - Market economy treatment - Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2012/C 366/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (Zhejiang) (represented: initially by K. Adamantopoulos and Y. Melin, and subsequently by Melin, V. Akritidis and F. Crespo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, acting as Agents) and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and E. Wäktare, and subsequently by J. Bourgeois, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and of the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

text:
22. 2. 95      I EN J             Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 45/ 11
                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                       NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                   (95/C 45/09)
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in the Official Journal ofthe
          European Communities (*) the following open competitions :
          Finnish edition
          CJ/LA/ 12 (Lawyer-linguists of Finnish mother tongue)
          Shwedish edition
          CJ/LA/ 13 (Lawyer Linguists of Swedish mother tongue)
          To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
          Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
          o OJ No C 45 A, 22. 2. 1995.


title: Case T-166/01: Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Lucchini S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.10.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 289/29
Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Lucchini S.p.A. against                       been considered only environmental to be production
       the Commission of the European Communities                               investments and thus applied rules which were not
                                                                                applicable to the contested investments. Once it had
                                                                                established that the investments notified related only to
                         (Case T-166/01)                                        the environment and not to production, the Commission
                                                                                should have made its decision on the basis only of the
                                                                                scheme of rules in Article 3 of the steel aid code which is
                         (2001/C 289/68)                                        applicable in this case and not of the rules which govern
                                                                                the Commission’s monitoring activities in cases in which
                                                                                there are production investments as well as environmen-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                             tal investments.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —    Internal inconsistencies in the reasoning of the Com-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    mission which, while holding the investments notified to
Communities on 23 July 2001 by Lucchini S.p.A., represented                     be merely in production, criticised the Italian authorities
by Giovanni Vezzoli.                                                            for not making any distinction between production costs
                                                                                and environment costs, a distinction which it could make
                                                                                only if the investments were held by the Commission to
                                                                                be environmental.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     as regards its main claim on the substance: annul Article 1          —    Failure to state reasons, in so far as the defendant did not
      of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2000                            furnish any objective account of the reasons why it
      (C(2000) 4368, OJ 2001 L 163 of 20 June 2001), where                      reached the conclusions which led it to consider the aid
      the Commission declared the State aid which Italy was                     notified incompatible with the common market, nor
      planning to implement for Lucchini SpA amounting to                       of the reasons why it considered that the contested
      ITL 13,5 billion (EUR 6,98 million) to be incompatible                    investments related to production installations rather
      with the common market;                                                   than environmental structures.
—     in any event: order the Commission to bear the costs.                —    Differences in the treatment of the applicant and that of
                                                                                other undertakings in certain important points of the
                                                                                reasoning of the Commission relating to aid granted in
                                                                                similar cases.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The contested decision closes a procedure which began with
the formal notification of the Commission by Italy under
Article 3 of the steel aid code of a plan for state aid for
Lucchini SpA for investments for environmental purposes to
be made at its plant in Piombino. In that procedure, the
defendant maintained that the investments notified were
primarily for the purposes of production rather than of
benefit to the environment and were moreover investments                   Action brought on 24 July 2001 by SAGEM against the
necessitated by other production investments for the modern-                       Commission of the European Communities
isation of the plant at Piombino and that, as such, they were
not eligible for State aid programmes.
                                                                                (Case T-169/01)
The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its
claims:                                                                                (2001/C 289/69)
—     Misuse of powers by reason of misrepresentation of the                                 (Language of the case: English)
      facts in so far as the Commission made a manifest error
      of assessment in evaluating without stating any reasons
      the investments notified, described by the Commission
      itself as being for both production and environmental                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      purposes.                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 24 July 2001 by SAGEM SA,
—     Breach and misapplication of rules of law, in so far as the          having its registered office in Paris, represented by Dominique
      defendant considered investments which should have                   Berlin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Paris (France).


C 19/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               25.1.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-254/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-227/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/45)                                                       (2003/C 19/47)
By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-254/01:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of                 from the register of Case C-227/02: Commission of the
Finland.                                                             European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.07.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-280/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/46)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-268/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/48)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-280/01
(Referral for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal            By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
(England & Wales) (Civil Division)): Brian Watson v First            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA.           from the register of Case C-268/02: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 219, 14.09.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inCase C-90/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Gummersbach v Gerhard Bockemühl (‘Reference for a preliminaryruling — Interpretation of Article 18(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Conditionsfor exercise of the right to deduct input VAT — Recipient of a service referredto in Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of staff by a taxableperson established abroad — Recipient liable for VAT as the person to whomthe supply was made — Requirement to hold an invoice — Content of the invoice’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-90/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Gummersbach v Gerhard Bockemühl
       (1)

   (‘Reference for a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of Article 18(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive - Conditions for exercise of the right to deduct input VAT - Recipient of a service referred to in Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of staff by a taxable person established abroad - Recipient liable for VAT as the person to whom the supply was made - Requirement to hold an invoice - Content of the invoice’)
   (2004/C 106/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-90/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt Gummersbach and Gerhard Bockemühl – on the interpretation of Articles 18(1) and 22(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1) and by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax (OJ 1992 L 384, p. 47) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled:
   A taxable person who is liable, as the recipient of services, for the value added tax relating thereto, in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers and by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing simplificationmeasures with regard to value added tax, is not obliged to be in possession of an invoice drawn up in accordance with Article 22(3) of that directive in order to be able to exercise his right to deduct.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.


title: Case C-264/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — Belgische Staat v Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV (Community Customs Code — Customs debt — Amount of duty — Articles 217 and 221 — Communities own resources — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Article 6 — Requirement of entry in the accounts of the amount of duty before it is communicated to the debtor — Definition of legally owed )

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — Belgische Staat v Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV
   (Case C-264/08) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Customs debt - Amount of duty - Articles 217 and 221 - Communities own resources - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Article 6 - Requirement of entry in the accounts of the amount of duty before it is communicated to the debtor - Definition of ‘legally owed’)
   2010/C 63/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgische Staat

      Defendant: Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 217(1) and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (in the version in force in 1992) (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Whether or not the amount of duty must be entered in the accounts before being communicated to the debtor — Meaning of ‘entered … in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium’ — Recovery of undue payment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of duty to be recovered as referred to in that provision is the same as ‘entry in the accounts’ of that amount as defined in Article 217(1) of that regulation;

               2.

               ‘Entry in the accounts’ within the meaning of Article 217(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be distinguished from entry of established entitlements in the accounts for own resources as referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities own resources. Since Article 217 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not lay down any practical procedures for ‘entry in the accounts’ within the meaning of that provision or, accordingly, any minimum requirements of a technical or formal nature, that entry in the accounts must be made in a way which ensures that the competent customs authorities enter the exact amount of the import duty or export duty resulting from a customs debt in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium, so that, inter alia, the entry in the accounts of the amounts concerned may be established with certainty, including with regard to the person liable;

               3.

               Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of import or export duty due can be validly communicated to the debtor by the customs authorities, in accordance with appropriate procedures, only if the amount of that duty has been entered in the accounts beforehand by the authorities. The Member States are not required to adopt specific procedural rules on the manner in which communication of the amount of import or export duty is to be made to the debtor where national procedural rules of general application can be applied to that communication, which ensure that the debtor receives adequate information and which enable him, with full knowledge of the facts, to defend his rights;

               4.

               Community law does not preclude the national court from proceeding on the assumption, based on the declaration by the customs authorities, that the ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of import or export duty within the meaning of Article 217 of Regulation No 2913/92 took place before that amount was communicated to the debtor, provided that the principles of effectiveness and equivalence are observed;

               5.

               Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the communication of the amount of duty to be recovered must have been preceded by the entry in the accounts of that amount by the customs authorities of the Member State concerned and that, if it has not been entered in the accounts in accordance with Article 217(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, that amount may not be recovered by those authorities, which however remain entitled to proceed with a new communication of that amount, in accordance with the conditions laid down by Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 and the limitation rules in force at the time the customs debt was incurred;

               6.

               Although the amount of import duty or export duty remains ‘legally owed’ within the meaning of Article 236(1), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 2913/92, even where that amount was communicated to the person liable without having been entered in the accounts beforehand in accordance with Article 221(1) of that regulation, the fact remains that, if such communication is no longer possible because the period laid down in Article 221(3) of that regulation has expired, that person must in principle be able to obtain repayment of that amount from the Member State which levied it.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-650/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark QD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)
   (Case T-650/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark QD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 2046/2015-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign QD as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case C-311/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Belgium) — Société de Gestion Industrielle (SGI) v État belge (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Income tax legislation — Determination of the taxable income of companies — Companies having a relationship of interdependence — Unusual or gratuitous advantage granted by a resident company to a company established in another Member State — Addition of the amount of the advantage in question to the profits of the resident company which granted it — Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States — Combating tax avoidance — Prevention of abuse — Proportionality)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Belgium) — Société de Gestion Industrielle (SGI) v État belge
   (Case C-311/08) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Income tax legislation - Determination of the taxable income of companies - Companies having a relationship of interdependence - Unusual or gratuitous advantage granted by a resident company to a company established in another Member State - Addition of the amount of the advantage in question to the profits of the resident company which granted it - Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States - Combating tax avoidance - Prevention of abuse - Proportionality)
   2010/C 63/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société de Gestion Industrielle (SGI)

      Défendant: État belge

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Mons (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 12, 43, 48 and 56 EC — Permissibility of a national law providing for the taxation of a resident company on an unusual or gratuitous advantage granted to a non-resident company with which it has a relationship of interdependence but which does not provide for such taxation where the same advantage is granted to a resident company

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a resident company is taxed in respect of an unusual or gratuitous advantage where the advantage has been granted to a company established in another Member State with which it has, directly or indirectly, a relationship of interdependence, whereas a resident company cannot be taxed on such an advantage where the advantage has been granted to another resident company with which it has such a relationship. However, it is for the referring court to verify whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation, taken together.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-356/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel by decision of that court of 29 July 2004 in the case of Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG against NV Etablissementen Franz Colruyt

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel by decision of that court of 29 July 2004 in the case of Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG against NV Etablissementen Franz Colruyt
   (Case C-356/04)
   (2004/C 273/23)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Brussels Commercial Court) of 29 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 18 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG against NV Etablissementen Franz Colruyt on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450/EEC (1) (as introduced by Directive 97/55/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising) be construed as meaning that the comparison of the general price level of advertisers with that of competitors, in which an extrapolation is made on the basis of a comparison of the prices of a sample of products, is impermissible inasmuch as this creates the impression that the advertiser is cheaper over its entire range of products, whereas the comparison made relates only to a limited sample of products, unless the advertisement makes it possible to establish which and how many products of the advertiser, on the one hand, and of the competitors used in the comparison, on the other, have been compared, and makes it possible to ascertain where each competitor concerned by the comparison is positioned in the comparison and what its prices might be in comparison with those of the advertiser and of the other competitors used in the comparison?

               2.

               Must Article 3a(1)(b) of Directive 84/450/EEC (as introduced by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising) be construed as meaning that comparative advertising is allowed only if the comparison relates to individual goods or services that meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose, with the exclusion of product selections, even if those selections, on the whole and not necessarily in regard to every sub-division, meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose?

               3.

               Must Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450/EEC (as introduced by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising) be construed as meaning that comparative advertising in which a comparison of the prices of products, or of the general price level, of competitors is made will be objective only if it lists the products and prices of the advertiser and those of all the competitors in the comparison that are being compared and makes it possible to ascertain the prices being charged by the advertiser and its competitors, in which case all products used in the comparison must be expressly indicated for each individual supplier?

               4.

               Must Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450/EEC (as introduced by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising) be construed as meaning that a feature in comparative advertising will satisfy the requirement of verifiability in that article only if that feature can be verified as to its accuracy by those to whom the advertising is addressed, or is it sufficient if the feature can be verified by third parties to whom the advertising is not addressed?

               5.

               Must Article 3a(1)(c) of Directive 84/450/EEC (as introduced by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising) be construed as meaning that the price of products and the general price level of competitors are in themselves verifiable features?

      (1)  OJ L 250 of 19.9.1984, p. 17-20.

      (2)  OJ L 290 of 23.10.1997, p. 18-23.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Case C-44/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supported by Port of Sheerness Limited (Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora - Delimitation of Special Protection Areas - Discretion enjoyed by the Member States - Economic and social considerations - Lappel Bank)

text:
No C 336/ 12            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June           Murray, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate
1983 ( 2 ), and Article 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC )               General : N. Fennelly; L. Hewlett, Administrator, acting as
No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for              Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 1996 , the operative
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , as amended               part of which is as follows :
and updated by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( 3 ) — the
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ,                1 . Article 4 (1 ) or (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho                  2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds is to be
de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P. Jann , Judges,                  interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not
Advocate-General : D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: H.                     authorized to take account of the economic
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July                   requirements mentioned in Article 2 thereof when
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                           designating a Special Protection Area and defining its
                                                                             boundaries.
Article 4 ( I ) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social               2 . Article 4 (1 ) or (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC is to be
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                       interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not,
persons and to members of their families moving within the                   when designating a Special Protection Area and defining
Community, as amended and updated by Council                                 is boundaries, take account ofeconomic requirements as
Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 june 1983 , must be                        constituting a general interest superior to that
interpreted as not applying to benefits which, like those                    represented by the ecological objective of that
provided for by the 1971 and 1988 guidelines on the                          directive.
granting of the adaptation allowance to employees in the
coal-mining industry, are granted by a Member State in the            3 . Article 4 (1 ) or (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC is to be
form of non-compulsory subsidies to workers from the time                    interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not,
at which they are laid off to the time at which they attain                  when designating a Special Protection Area and defining
retirement age.                                                              its boundaries, take account of economic requirements
                                                                             which may constitute imperative reasons of overriding
(') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4.1995 .                                                 public interest of the kind referred to in Article 6 (4) of
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 .                                            Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
(■') OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 86 .                                            conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and
                                                                             flora.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p . 1 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 11 July 1996
in Case C-44/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
House of Lords ): Regina v. Secretary of State for the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Environment ex parte : Royal Society for the Protection of                                       ( Fifth Chamber)
       Birds supported by Port of Sheerness Limited ( J )
                                                                                of 11 July 1996
 (Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds —
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of the natural                in Case C-303/95 : Commission of the European Commu
habitats of wild fauna and flora — Delimitation of Special                                 nities v. Italian Republic (')
Protection Areas — Discretion enjoyed by the Member                        (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/157/EEC)
States — Economic and social considerations — Lappel                                               ( 96/C 336/22 )
                                Bank)
                           ( 96/C 336/21 )                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: English)                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-44/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the House of Lords for a              In Case C-303/95 : Commission of the European
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Communities ( Agents: Laura Pignataro and Maria
court in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for the             Kontou-Durande ) v. Italian Republic ( Agents : Umberto
Environment, ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of            Leanza , assisted by Oscar Fiumara ) — application for a
 Birds supported by Port of Sheerness Limited, on the                 declaration by the Court that, by not adopting the laws,
 interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild               comply with Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March
 birds ( 2 ), the Court composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,         1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain
President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch              dangerous substances ( 2 ), or at least by failing to inform the
 ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de         Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has
Almeida , P. J. G. Kaptevn, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), J. L.          failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the


title: Case T-497/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — CEPSA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements — Translation of the statement of objections — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Reasonable period — Principle of impartiality — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Res judicata)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — CEPSA v Commission
   (Case T-497/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements - Translation of the statement of objections - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Reasonable period - Principle of impartiality - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Res judicata)
   2013/C 336/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented: initially by O. Armengol i Gasull, P. Pérez-Llorca Zamora and Á. Pascual Morcillo, subsequently by O. Armengol i Gasull and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, and initially by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, and M. Heenan Bróna, solicitor, subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyer, and finally by J. Rivas Andrés)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP-38.710 Bitumen (Spain)), and for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the claim of the European Commission regarding the amount of the fine.

               3.

               Orders Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-188/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Infeurope v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/48

         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Infeurope v Commission
   (Case T-188/08)
   (2008/C 171/91)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Infeurope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the European Commission has failed to annul the decision of awarding the framework contracts under the call for tenders procedure AO/026/06 of the OHIM on consultancy services, audits and studies;

               —

               declare that the European Commission has failed to terminate the specific contracts concluded under the said framework contracts;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 35 950 plus 4 % interest on the amount of EUR 33 050 from 19 December 2006, plus 4 % interest on the amount of EUR 2 900 from 14 December 2007; respectively 8 % interest on sum of EUR 35 950 from the date of judgment;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 646 631,27, plus 4 % interest on the said sum from 14 May 2008, respectively 8 % interest on the said sum from the date of judgment;

               —

               order the European Commission to produce certain documents relating to the procedure for evaluating the tenders;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the declaration that the Commission failed to annul the decision taken by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) awarding multiple framework contracts under the tender procedure AO/026/06 of the OHIM on ‘E-Alicante: consultancy services, audits and studies’ (1) and that it has failed to terminate the corresponding specific contracts under the framework.
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-176/08 Infeurope v Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2006/S 210-223510.


title: Case C-344/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2017 — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2017 — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando
   (Case C-344/17)
   (2017/C 330/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IJDF Italy Srl

      Defendants: Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

      Question referred

   Must Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national law that, when cases are related, in particular when there is a guarantee claim related to the original proceedings, provides that the cases are to be determined together before the same court, even though as a result of that provision jurisdiction in respect of the guarantee claim lies with a court other than that within whose jurisdiction the consumer resides or other than that of his address for service?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case F-68/11: Action brought on 15 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/52

         Action brought on 15 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-68/11)
   2011/C 282/98
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the Commission terminating the applicant's contract of employment of indefinite duration.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission (hereinafter, the AACC) of 30 September 2010, terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration;

               —

               together with, and so far as necessary: annul the decision of the AACC of 14 April 2011, rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 December 2010 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Election of the Presidents of Chambers

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/1

         Election of the Presidents of Chambers
   (2005/C 31/01)
   At their meeting on 6 October 2004, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, under the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Lenaerts as President of the Fourth Chamber, Ms Silva de Lapuerta as President of the Fifth Chamber and Mr Borg Barthet as President of the Sixth Chamber for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2005.
   The composition of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Chambers is established as follows:
   Fourth Chamber
   Mr Lenaerts, President,
   Ms Colneric, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Schiemann, Mr Juhász, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges
   Fifth Chamber
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta, President,
   Mr Gulmann, Mr Schintgen, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Kūris, Mr Arestis and Mr Klučka, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Borg Barthet, President,
   Mr La Pergola, Mr Puissochet, Mrs Macken, Mr von Bahr, Mr Malenovský and M. Lõhmus, Judges


title: Case T-33/00: Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez Páramo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (2) order the reimbursement to the applicant of the OHIM
                                                                            appeal fee and order the OHIM to pay the costs of the
— annul the decision adopted on 25 November 1999 by the                     proceedings;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered            (3) in the alternative, order that the disclaimer ‘Alle vorge-
    under number R 75/1999-3;                                               nannten Waren/Dienstleistungen für eine in München
                                                                            stattfindende Messe’ (‘All the aforementioned goods/ser-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     vices in relation to a trade fair held in Munich’) be annexed
                                                                            to the specification of goods/services.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           pictorial mark using the colours
cerned:                       white and red — application               The trade mark con-            the denominative and allegedly
                              No 840 132                                cerned:                        pictorial mark ‘electronica’ —
                                                                                application No 34587
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent                             Goods or service con-          goods and services in Classes 16,
                                                                        cerned:                        35 and 41 (including catalogues
                              Class 42, research in that field                                         relating to, and the organisation
                                                                                of, trade fairs in respect of build-
                                                                                ing components and construction
                                                                                groups in the electronics sector)
Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
peal:                                                                   before the Board of Ap-        examiner
                                                                        peal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Grounds of claim:              — incorrect        application    of
                              — Misuse of discretionary pow-                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                  ers                                                                      (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — incorrect        application    of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                        Páramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
                         (Case T-32/00)                                                        pean Communities
                        (2000/C 135/29)                                                          (Case T-33/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 February 2000 by Messes München GmbH, of Munich                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt, of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Mitscherlich & Partner, Sonnenstrasse 33, Munich.                       European Communities on 17 February 2000 by Natalia
                                                                        Martı́nez Páramo, of Brussels, Anna Sodro, of Sterrebeek,
                                                                        Belgium, Inès Van Lierde, of Beersel, Belgium, Jean-Martial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Marenne, of Brussels, Ron Moys, of West Malling, the United
                                                                        Kingdom, and Michael Horgan, of Brussels, represented by Eric
(1) annul the decision adopted on 17 December 1999 by the               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
    in the Internal Market in appeal No R 177/1998-2;                   Rheinsheim.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Anthony Gold-
                                                                       stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the decisions of 19 April 1999 (concerning Martı́nez                                          ties
    Páramo, Jean-Martial Marenne, Inès Van Lierde and Ron
    Moys) and 29 April 1999 (concerning Anna Sodro and
                                                                                (Case T-35/00)
    Michael Horgan) signed on behalf of the President of the
    jury by a head of unit;
                                                                                (2000/C 135/31)
— annul the decisions of 17 November 1999 and 12 January
    2000 (the latter concerning Michael Horgan) rejecting the
    applicants’ claims of 30 June 1999 (brought by Martı́nez
    Páramo, Michael Horgan and Ron Moys) and 29 June                                    (Language of the case: English)
    2000 (brought by Anna Sodro, Inès Van Lierde and
    Jean-Martial Marenne) under Article 90(2) of the Staff
    Regulations;                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Anthony
— order the defendant to grant access to the corrected copies          Goldstein, represented by Raymond St. John Murphy, Solicitor.
    of the written tests taken by the applicants in competitions
    COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
                                                                       — declare that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission are
                                                                            in breach of Article 218 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January 2000;
The applicants, who are category A or category B temporary
agents who participated in the tests for the competitions
COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98, take issue with the content               — order the Commission to pay the costs.
of the letter addressed to them by a head of unit of the
Commission, on behalf of the President of the jury, confirming
the marks for the written tests awarded to them by the jury.
That letter stated that the marking system adopted by the jury         Pleas in law and main arguments
had been established objectively and had taken account of
each candidate’s comprehension of the subject-matter, the
structure of the test, and the candidate’s written expression,         The application in the present case is for annulment of the
logic and reasoning ability. It stressed that the tests had been       decision contained in a letter addressed by the Commission on
marked, unnamed, by two readers independently before the               21 January 2000 to Merriman White, Solicitors, concerning a
jury decided upon the final marks, which it awarded in a               request for information from the Commission pursuant to the
uniform fashion for all the candidates.                                order of a national court in the United Kingdom for such
                                                                       assistance, made under the Notice on Cooperation between
                                                                       National Courts and the Commission in applying Articles 81
In support of their claim the applicants allege a failure to           and 82 of the Treaty.
comply with the terms of the notice of competition, infringe-
ment of Article 255 of the Treaty of Rome, Articles 25 and 30
of the Staff Regulations and Annex III thereto laying down the         The purpose of the request for information is to enable the
competition procedure, and the breach of certain general legal         national court to determine whether the legal conditions are
principles, including the principle of sound administration, the       satisfied for the application of the prohibitions contained in
protection of the rights of the defence and the obligation to          Articles 10, 81 and 82 of the Treaty to the anticompetitive
state reasons.                                                         behaviour of the General Medical Council in relation to the
                                                                       conditions for the recognition of medical qualifications in the
                                                                       United Kingdom.
The applicants take the view that they are not in a position to
ascertain that the tests which they failed were in fact marked
properly because they were not informed of the marks awarded           In support of his action the applicant pleads:
to each of them or of the marking system. Furthermore, they
were not allowed to see their corrected papers, and thus it is
impossible for them to make any comparisons or to assess any           — infringement of Article 250 of the Treaty, inasmuch as the
errors they made.                                                           contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement
                                                                            of reasons;
                                                                       — breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;


title: Case C-305/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage (Belgium) by order of that court of 13 July 2005 in Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres and Ordre des barreaux flamands and Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage (Belgium) by order of that court of 13 July 2005 in Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres and Ordre des barreaux flamands and Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-305/05)
   (2005/C 243/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour d'arbitrage (Belgium) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres and Ordre des barreaux flamands and Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des ministres on the following question:
   Does Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (1) infringe the right to a fair trail such as is guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and, as a consequence, Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, in so far as the new Article 2a(5) which it inserts into Directive 91/308/EEC requires the inclusion of members of the independent legal profession, without excluding the profession of avocat, in the scope of application of this same directive, which, in substance, has the aim of imposing an obligation on persons or establishments covered by it to inform the authorities responsible for the fight against money laundering of any fact which might be an indication of such laundering (Article 6 of Directive 91/308/EEC, replaced by Article 1(5) of Directive 2001/97/EC)?

      (1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76