title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer (C-322/99) and Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann v KIaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 5(6) and 11A(1)(b) — Allocation of business goods for private purposes — Taxation if the goods or the component parts thereof gave rise to entitlement to deduct input VAT — Meaning of "component parts" of the goods allocated)

text:
C 200/20                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            14.7.2001
1.    Declares that, by laying down rules permitting the capture and       Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
      keeping of the species Passer italiae, Passer montanus and           and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      Sturnus vulgaris, contrary to the combined provisions of             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      Articles 5 and 7 of’Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April          on 17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
      1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Annex II thereto,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
                                                                           1.   Where a taxable person allocates for purposes other than those
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                               of the business goods (in this case a motor vehicle) on the
                                                                                acquisition of which value added tax was not deductible and
3.    Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                         which, after being acquired, had value-added-tax-deductible
                                                                                work done on them, the value added tax payable under
                                                                                Article 5(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
                                                                                1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                       relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
                                                                                tax: uniform basis of assessment applies solely to the ‘component
                                                                                parts’ of the goods in respect of which there was entitlement to
                                                                                deduct, namely the components which definitively lost their
                                                                                physical and economic distinctiveness when they were incorpor-
                                                                                ated in the vehicle, after its purchase, following transactions
                                                                                involving supplies of goods which led to a lasting increase in
                                                                                the value of the vehicle which has not been entirely consumed at
                                                                                the time of the allocation.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2.   In the case of an allocation which is taxable under Article 5(6)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                      of the Sixth Directive 77/388, in particular the allocation of
                                                                                goods (in this case a motor vehicle)
                           of 17 May 2001
                                                                                —     which were acquired without any entitlement to deduct,
in Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt                         —     on which work giving entitlement to deduct has been
Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer (C-322/99) and Finanzamt                                carried out, resulting in the incorporation of ‘component
Düsseldorf-Mettmann v KIaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) (1)                               parts’ in the goods,
(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 5(6) and 11A(1)(b) —                            the taxable amount for the purposes of Article 11(A)(1)(b) of
Allocation of business goods for private purposes — Tax-                        Sixth Directive 77/388 must be determined with reference to
ation if the goods or the component parts thereof gave                          the price, at the time of the allocation, of the goods incorporated
rise to entitlement to deduct input VAT — Meaning of                            in the vehicle which constitute component parts of the goods
           ‘component parts’ of the goods allocated)                            allocated, within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that directive.
                           (2001/C 200/35)                                 3.   Where work which is carried out on goods (in this case a motor
                                                                                vehicle) after their purchase and on which input value added tax
                                                                                was deducted does not give rise to liability for value added tax
                                                                                pursuant to Article 5(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 when the
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                vehicle is allocated, the value added tax deducted in respect of
                                                                                that work must be adjusted in accordance with Article 20(1)(b)
                                                                                of that directive if the value of the work in question has not
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          been entirely consumed in the context of the business activity of
                    in the European Court Reports)                              the taxable person before the vehicle is allocated to his private
                                                                                assets.
In Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99: references to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Finanzamt Burgdorf and Hans-Georg Fischer                    (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
(C-322/99) and between Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann and
Klaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) — on the interpretation of
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) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the


title: Case C-392/12 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2012 by Fruit of the Loom, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 June 2012 in Case T-514/10: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/9

         Appeal brought on 22 August 2012 by Fruit of the Loom, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 June 2012 in Case T-514/10: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-392/12 P)
   2012/C 355/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant seeks the following Order:

               —

               The judgment of the General Court in Case T-514/10 dated 21 June 2012 shall be annulled.

               —

               The Office and intervener shall bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court failed to appreciate that under Article 15(l)(a) CTMR (1) there were in effect three stages to the inquiry. First, it is necessary to consider the distinctive character of the mark as registered. Secondly it is necessary to consider the distinctive character of the marks as used. Thirdly it is necessary to consider whether the distinctive character of the mark as registered is altered. Had the General Court properly applied this approach to the evidence it would have realised that the evidence of use satisfied Article 15(1)(a) CTMR.
   The General Court imposed an erroneous rule of interpretation of Community trade marks whereby if consumers within a Member State do not understand a word element of a trade mark (either because it is an obscure word in another Community Language or because it is not similar to a word in their own language) that element is nonetheless to be regarded as being of equal distinctiveness to a word element that they do understand and which is itself distinctive.
   The General Court failed to consider or apply by analogy the Court's case law concerning use in the context of acquired distinctive character under Article 7 CTMR which is to the effect that the distinctive character of a mark may be acquired in consequence of the use of that mark as part of or in conjunction with a registered trade nark in accordance with Case C-353/03 Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Mars UK Limited [2005] ECR I-06135.
   The General Court distorted the facts concerning the appellant's use of the word FRUIT in its informal dealings with customers. Contrary to the General Court's finding, such use was not purely internal and did amount to genuine use of the mark.
   The General Court distorted the facts concerning the appellant's use of the mark FRUIT as part of its website at www.fruit.com. Contrary to the General Court's finding, such use was in order to promote goods and was genuine.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case C-186/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 1 April 2016 — Ruxandra-Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 1 April 2016 — Ruxandra-Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA
   (Case C-186/16)
   (2016/C 243/17)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ruxandra-Paula Andriciuc and Others

      Defendant: Banca Românească SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising from the contract must be evaluated strictly by reference to the time when the contract was concluded or does that imbalance also extend to the case where, during the performance of the contract, whether it is performed at regular intervals or continuously, performance by the consumer has become excessively burdensome in comparison with the time when the contract was concluded because of significant variations in the exchange rate?

               2.

               Must the plainness and intelligibility of a contractual term, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, be understood to mean that that term must provide not only for the grounds of its incorporation in the contract and the term’s method of operation, or must it also provide for all the possible consequences of the term as a result of which the price paid by the consumer may vary, for example, foreign exchange risk, and in the light of Directive 93/13/EEC may it be considered that the bank’s obligation to inform the customer at the time of granting the credit relates solely to the conditions of credit, namely, the interest, commissions, and guarantees required of the borrower, since such an obligation may not include the possible overvaluation or undervaluation of a foreign currency?

               3.

               Must Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 EEC be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘the main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplie[d] in exchange, on the other’ include a term incorporated in a credit agreement entered into in a foreign currency concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which has not been negotiated individually, pursuant to which ‘the credit must be repaid in the same currency’?

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


title: Case C-255/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-255/12)
   2012/C 217/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case T-464/14 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2014 by Risto Nieminen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 in Case F-81/12, Nieminen v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/45

         Appeal brought on 20 June 2014 by Risto Nieminen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 in Case F-81/12, Nieminen v Council

   (Case T-464/14 P)
   2014/C 261/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Risto Nieminen (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2014 in Case F-81/12 (Risto Nieminen v Council);

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal: infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that there had been a manifest error of assessment, even though it was aware that the appellant was not really in a position to do so and despite its refusal to compel the defendant at first instance to produce all the documents relevant for the purposes of determining whether that plea was well founded.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: distortion of the evidence and the facts.


title: Case C-466/99: Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
5.2.2000                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/19
— The United Kingdom’s failure to take penal or administra-                laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     tive action against the skippers and vessel owners found              1996 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     not to have complied with the relevant legislation concern-           visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
     ing conservation and control measures is an infringement              the conclusions of the Commission.
     of Article 1(2) of Regulation 2057/82 as amended
     (Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 from 1 August 1987).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 of 25 January 1983 estab-
    lishing a Community system for the conservation and manage-
    ment of fishery resources, OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of
    the Member States, OJ L 220, 29.7.1982, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities OJ L 207,
    29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-466/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/36)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
of the European Communities against the United                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
                               Kingdom                                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                           Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                           (Case C-455/99)                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                            (2000/C 34/35)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        — Declare that, by failing to forward to the Commission
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          information concerning plans for the management and
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the                   disposal of waste, hazardous waste, packaging and packag-
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                   ing waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                     obligations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 of Directives
                                                                               75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC respective-
                                                                               ly (3);
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 concerning
     packaging and packaging waste, the United Kingdom has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                               The Italian Republic should have forwarded to the Commission
                                                                           the information required under Directives 75/442/EEC,
                                                                           91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC on the drawing up of plans for
                                                                           the management and disposal of waste, hazardous waste,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            packaging and packaging waste pursuant to Articles 7, 6 and
                                                                           14 thereof respectively.
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,             The Italian Republic failed to do so, nor did the Commission
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation               receive the requisite information following the reasoned
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                  opinion notified to the Italian authorities on 21 October 1998.
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.2.2000
In those circumstances, the Commission finds that the Italian               United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community               that Directive, and
law.
                                                                       — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
(3) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
                                                                       Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
                                                                       a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                       upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                       on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                       laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 March
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Commission                    1998 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
                                                                       visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
of the European Communities against the United
                                                                       the conclusions of the Commission.
                            Kingdom
                        (Case C-468/99)                                (1) on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated
                                                                           terphenyls (PCB/PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
                         (2000/C 34/37)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          Removal from the register of Case C-90/99 (1)
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                                     (2000/C 34/38)
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.
                                                                       By order of 22 October 1999 the President of the Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-90/99: Commission of the
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                       European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 (1) or
    in any event not informing the Commission thereof, the             (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-576/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014  — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT — Earlier Community word marks PROTECTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)
   (Case T-576/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT - Earlier Community word marks PROTECTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/46
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS (Carros, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 700/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS and Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-30/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Engelhorn v OHIM — The Outdoor Group (peerstorm)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/29

         Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Engelhorn v OHIM — The Outdoor Group (peerstorm)
   (Case T-30/09)
   (2009/C 82/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Engelhorn KGaA (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Outdoor Group Limited (Northampton, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision R-167/2008-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2008; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘peerstorm’ for goods and services in Class 25 (Community trade mark application No 4 115 382)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Outdoor Group Limited

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘PETER STORM’ for goods in Class 25 (Community trade mark No 833 566) and the British trade mark ‘PETER STORM’ for goods in Class 18

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the application for a Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks, and infringement of Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) inasmuch as use preserving the right to use the trade mark cited in opposition has not been sufficiently proven.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-196/06 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 — Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CompUSA Management Co (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of a figurative mark — Opposition of the proprietor of an earlier national figurative mark — Likelihood of confusion — None — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the conflicting trade marks)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/24

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 — Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CompUSA Management Co
   (Case C-196/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of a figurative mark - Opposition of the proprietor of an earlier national figurative mark - Likelihood of confusion - None - No similarity between the goods and services covered by the conflicting trade marks)
   (2007/C 96/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), CompUSA Management Co
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03 Alecansan v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘COMP USA ’in respect of goods in Class 39 for annulment of Decision R 711/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition lodged against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘COMP USA ’in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 37 — Similarity between the marks — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Alecansan SL shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case C-431/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — 1) FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd, 2) Caterpillar EPG Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — 1) FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd, 2) Caterpillar EPG Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-431/08)
   (2008/C 327/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (pursuant to a request from the Northern Ireland Tribunal Centre)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd, Caterpillar EPG Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               Were the goods in this case unlawfully removed from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203(1) of the Code (1), by reason of the operation of Article 865 IR (2)?

               2.

               If so, was a customs debt on importation thereby incurred under Article 203 of the Code?

               3.

               If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, does the Code, and in particular Article 78(3), permit revision of the declaration to correct the CPC and if so, are HMRC required to amend the declaration and to regularise the situation?

               4.

               If there can be no regularisation under Article 78 of the Code and given that there was a customs debt under Article 203 of the Code and given that it is common ground that there was a special situation as contemplated by Article 899 IR, was it in the circumstances and in the light of the findings that follow open to the Tribunal to conclude that there was no obvious negligence present, so that the customs debt should be remitted under Article 239 of the Code and the demand for customs duty should be withdrawn? In particular, in considering whether there has been obvious negligence on the part of the trader concerned, are the competent authorities entitled to take into account the fact that the revenue authority's own failing in its duty of care and management has contributed to the errors giving rise to the customs debt?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).


title: Case C-676/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by Zoo Sport Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-453/12: Zoo Sport Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and intervener before the General Court K-2 Corp.

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/2

         Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by Zoo Sport Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-453/12: Zoo Sport Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and intervener before the General Court K-2 Corp.
   (Case C-676/13 P)
   2014/C 303/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Zoo Sport Ltd (represented by: I. Rungg, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and K-2 Corp.
   By order of 15 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-139/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — France v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/31

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — France v Commission
   (Case T-139/06)
   (2006/C 165/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Belliard, acting as Agent, G. de Bergues, acting as Agent, S. Gasri, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, annul the contested decision due to the Commission's lack of competence;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the contested decision on the ground of a procedural irregularity due to infringement of the rights of the defence;

               —

               In the further alternative, annul the contested decision in that it contains an incorrect assessment of the measures taken by France to execute fully the judgment of 12 July 2005;

               —

               In the even further alternative, annul the contested decision in that it should have contained a lower amount of periodic penalty payment;

               —

               In the further alternative again, reduce the amount of the periodic penalty payment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs or, if the amount of the periodic penalty payment is reduced by the Court of First Instance, order each party to bear its own costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 11 June 1991 (1), the Court of Justice of the European Communities found that the applicant had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on Member States by Community law in the area of fisheries policy. Since that judgment was not implemented, the Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice based on Article 228 EC and by judgment of 12 July 2005 (2) the applicant was ordered to pay to the Commission a penalty payment for each period of six months as from delivery of the judgment as well as a fixed sum. Following that judgment, the Commission carried out examinations as to the extent of the applicant's implementation of the judgment of the Court of 11 June 1991 and, on finding that the applicant had not executed it fully, the Commission directed a decision at it requesting the payment of the financial penalties imposed on it by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 12 July 2005. The decision in question is the contested decision.
   In support of its action the applicant is relying on several pleas.
   Principally, it submits that the contested decision should be annulled due to the Commission's lack of competence in that the Commission cannot adopt a decision which imposes on a Member State the recovery of a periodic penalty payment imposed by the Court of Justice in the context of Article 228 EC. It submits that under Article 228 EC only the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to call for such a payment in that that implies a prior finding that the failure to fulfil obligations is persisting.
   Alternatively, the applicant submits the procedural irregularity of the taking of a decision by the Commission owing to infringement of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the French authorities did not have the opportunity of properly presenting their observations before the contested decision was taken.
   In the further alternative, the applicant submits an argument as to the incorrect assessment by the Commission of the measures taken by France to execute fully the judgment of the Court of Justice.
   In the even further alternative, it submits that, given the implementing measures which it has introduced since the Court of Justice's judgment, the Commission should have set the amount of the periodic penalty payment at a lower level.
   Lastly, in the further alternative again, the applicant submits that if the Court of First Instance considers that the Commission did not itself have the power to reduce the amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed in the judgment of the Court of Justice, it is for the Court of First Instance to do so itself in the context of its unlimited jurisdiction.

      (1)  Case C-64/88 Commission v France [1991] ECR I-2727

      (2)  Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0002

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 March 2001 in the case of Dr Martin Franz Pucher (Case E-2/01)

Official Journal C 242 , 30/08/2001 P. 0005 - 0005

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 March 2001 in the case of Dr Martin Franz Pucher(Case E-2/01)(2001/C 242/08)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 March 2001 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Martin Franz Pucher, on the following questions:1. Does the residence requirement imposed by Article 180(a)(1) of the PGR constitute overt or covert discrimination on grounds of nationality, within the meaning of Article 4 EEA, alternatively, does that residence requirement constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment provided for by Article 31 EEA?2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative: is the discrimination or restriction justified on public-interest grounds, in particular those of public policy and/or public security (see Article 33 EEA)?


title: Case F-39/12: Action brought on 19 March 2012 — ZZ v Court of Auditors

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/38

         Action brought on 19 March 2012 — ZZ v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-39/12)
   2012/C 138/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors rejecting an application seeking acknowledgment of unlawful conduct which is alleged to have caused the applicant to suffer material and non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 7 December 2011 brought against the decision by the head of the Court of Auditors rejecting ZZ’s application seeking acknowledgment of unlawful conduct which has caused him to suffer damage and has given rise to the non-contractual liability of the European Union;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the purposes of making good the non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 50 000 and the material damage suffered in the amount of, on the one hand, the difference between the amount of remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled if he had had an average career progression and his current grade and, on the other hand, the difference between the amount of remuneration to which he would have been entitled if he had continued his career until the statutory retirement age and his current pension;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case C-527/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Lourdes Cachaldora Fernández v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Male and female workers — Equal treatment in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — Directive 97/81/EC — UNICE, CEEP and ETUC Framework Agreement on part-time work — Calculation of benefit — System for inclusion of contribution gaps — Part-time workers and full-time workers)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Lourdes Cachaldora Fernández v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-527/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Male and female workers - Equal treatment in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - Directive 97/81/EC - UNICE, CEEP and ETUC Framework Agreement on part-time work - Calculation of benefit - System for inclusion of contribution gaps - Part-time workers and full-time workers))
   (2015/C 198/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lourdes Cachaldora Fernández

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction;

               2.

               The Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, set out in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case T-237/95: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v. European Parliament (Officials - Internal competition - Appointment to a post as Head of Division)

text:
No C 228/14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under those provisions,
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations or administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive            — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     91 /676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     nitrates from agricultural sources ('), and, in
     particular, by not having designated vulnerable zones
     as provided for in Article 3 ( 2 ) thereof, or establishing      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     or submitting a code or codes of good agricultural               paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
     practice as provided for in Article 4 thereof, the               Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations         transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC               law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
     Treaty and Article 3 ( 2 ), Article 4 and Article 12 of          so. That period expired on 19 December 1993 without
     Directive 91 /676/EEC,                                           Portugal having brought into force the necessary
                                                                      provisions.
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith
     to inform the Commission of such measures, the                   (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (First Chamber)                                                        of 12 June 1997
                        of 12 June 1997                               in Case T-104/96: Ludwig Kramer v. Commission of the
in Case T-237/95 : Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v. European                                 European Communities ( J )
                         Parliament Í 1 )                             (Officials — Determination of the level of a post —
                                                                      Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Misuse of
(Officials — Internal competition — Appointment to a
                   post as Head of Division)                                  powers — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations)
                         ( 97/C 228/29 )                                                         ( 97/C 228/30 )
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-237/95 : Fernando Carbajo Ferrero, an official              In Case T-104/96 : Ludwig Kramer, an official of the
of the European Parliament, residing in Madrid,                       Commission of the European Communities, residing
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,                  in Tervuren ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
both of the Brussels bar, with an address for service in              Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
30 Rue de Cessange, against the European Parliament                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
( Agents: Norbert Lorenz and Alex Bonn) — application                 European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Denis
for the annulment of, first, the decision of the European             Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the Notice of
Parliament to appoint Mr X to the post of Head of                     Vacancy for the post of Head of Unit XI.B. 3 , classified at
Division of the European Parliament's office in Madrid                Grade A 5/A 4 ( COM/111/95 ), and consequently
following Internal Competition No A/88 and, secondly, its             annulment of the appointment of Mr K. to that post —
decision not to appoint the applicant to that post — the              the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of A.              of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,                    Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the                   given a judgment on 12 June 1997, the operative part of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 1997 in which              which is as follows :
it :
                                                                      1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.                          2 . The parties shall bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .                                        H OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .


title: Case T-72/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Sogepi Consulting y Publicidad v OHIM (ESPETEC) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ESPETEC — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive nature — Lack of distinctiveness — Lack of distinctiveness acquired by use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Sogepi Consulting y Publicidad v OHIM (ESPETEC)
   (Case T-72/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ESPETEC - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive nature - Lack of distinctiveness - Lack of distinctiveness acquired by use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 319/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sogepi Consulting y Publicidad, SL (Vic, Spain) (represented by: initially by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa, T. Barceló Rebaque and N. Esteve Manasanch, and subsequently by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. Esteve Manasanch)

      Defendant: OHIM (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2010 (Case R 312/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ESPETEC as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sogepi Consulting y Publicidad, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-357/16: Action brought on 5 July 2016 — Punch Powertrain v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/41

         Action brought on 5 July 2016 — Punch Powertrain v Commission
   (Case T-357/16)
   (2016/C 296/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Punch Powertrain (Sint-Truiden, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium, as published on the European Commission website on 4 May 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU in so far as the Commission wrongly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure.

                           —

                           The Commission infringes Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 107(1) TFEU since it wrongly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure. The contested aid cannot be allocated solely on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van de inkomstenbelastingen van 1992 (Belgian Income Tax Code of 1992; ‘the WIB 1992’), but requires additional implementing measures in order for that provision to be applied.

                           —

                           The Commission infringes Article 296 TFEU in so far as its statement of reasons contains a contradiction. The contradiction lies in the fact that the Commission fails to explain why, when assessing the criterion of selectivity, it takes the view that the previous decisions do not stem directly from Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992, whereby it assumes, in assessing the existence of an aid measure, that the provision referred to does not require any additional implementing measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, in that the Commission did not correctly assess the existence of an advantage.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to investigate whether the contested aid measure led in fact to the conferral of an advantage, as contemplated by Article 107(1) TFEU, on the recipient undertakings. This was in spite of the fact that that condition is a prerequisite for State aid, and that the Commission is thus required to examine it before it can decide whether State aid exists, failing which it will be in breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature.

                           —

                           Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992 and the excess profit exemption system arising out of it are open to all undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation and which conduct the economic transactions that form the subject matter of the contested measure. The contested measure is therefore not restricted to specific undertakings that can be defined according to particular features, and is thus not selective within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           In the alternative, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the exemption of excess profit did not form part of the reference system. The exemption of excess profit on the basis of synergies and economies of scale in application of the arm’s length principle is a key component of the provisions that determine total taxable income, and thus cannot be regarded as constituting a derogation from the reference system that leads to selectivity.

                           —

                           In the further alternative, the Commission is unable to prove that the arm’s length principle was incorrectly applied by the Belgische Rulingcommissie (Belgian Tax Ruling Committee) in the context of the application of Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992. The Commission’s reasoning is not coherent and takes into account important factors which are, however, contradictory or lack the necessary coherence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty in imposing an obligation to recover.

                           —

                           On the basis of the well-established line of decisions of the Commission that did not call into question the application of the internationally recognised arm’s length principle, it would be at variance with the principle of legal certainty if an order for the recovery of the alleged aid were to be applied in the present case. On the basis of the existing line of decisions and case-law, it could not, in any event, have been foreseen that Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992 would be contrary to Article 107 TFEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2001 in Case T-151/01 R: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland AG v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — Abuse of a dominant position — Article 82 EC — Trade-mark law — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of interests)

text:
16.3.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 68/11
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              European Communities on 10 December 2001 by Henkel
                              INSTANCE                                    KGaA, represented by Mr Holger Wissel and Dr Christian
                                                                          Osterrieth (Clifford Chance Pünder) of Düsseldorf (Germany).
                      of 15 November 2001
in Case T-151/01 R: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Deutschland AG v Commission of the European Com-
                               munities                                   —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                OHIM of 12 September 2001 in appeal proceedings
(Interlocutory proceedings — Abuse of a dominant position                       no. R 738/2000-3
— Article 82 EC — Trade-mark law — Prima facie case —
               Urgency — Weighing of interests)                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the action
                           (2002/C 68/20)
                   (Language of the case: German)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case T-151/01 R: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System
Deutschland AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represent-
ed by W. Deselaers, B. Meyring, E. Wagner and C. Weidemann,               Applicant for the Com-        LHS Ltd.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                munity trade mark:
mission of the European Communities (Agent: S. Rating),
supported by Vfw AG, established in Cologne, represented by               The Community trade           The word mark ‘Kleencare’ for
H.F. Wissel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,           mark concerned:               goods in classes 1, 3, 5 and 42.
Landbell AG, established in Mainz (Germany), represented by
A. Rinne, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,              Proprietor of the right to    Henkel KGaA
and Bellandvision GmbH, established at Pegnitz (Germany),                 the trade mark or sign
represented by A. Rinne, lawyer, with an address for service in           asserted by way of oppo-
Luxembourg — application for suspension of operation of                   sition in the opposition
Article 3 of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April                  proceedings:
2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC
Treaty (Case COMP D3/34493 DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1),                    Trade mark or sign            The German word mark ‘Carclin’
and of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of that decision in so far as they          asserted by way of oppo-      for goods in classes 1 and 2.
refer to the said Article 3 — the President of the Court of First         sition in the opposition
Instance made an order on 15 November 2001, the operative                 proceedings:
part of which is as follows:
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition by
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                  sition Division:              Henkel KGaA
2.    The costs are reserved.                                             Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
                                                                          Appeal:                       Henkel KGaA
                                                                          Grounds of claim:             Violation of Articles 57 and fol-
                                                                                lowing of regulation 40/94 (1) in
                                                                                that the Board of Appeal can
Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Henkel KGaA                                                       review fully the decisions of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                    Opposition Division. Further-
                                Market                                                                  more, violation of Article 76 (1) (f)
                                                                                of Regulation 40/94 by the refusal
                          (Case T-308/01)                                                               of a statement made by a person
                                                                                connected with the applicant.
                           (2002/C 68/21)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-303/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitragehof, Belgium) — Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Articles 6(2) EU and 34(2)(b) EU — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Approximation of national laws — Removal of verification of double criminality — Validity)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitragehof, Belgium) — Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad
   (Case C-303/05) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Articles 6(2) EU and 34(2)(b) EU - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Approximation of national laws - Removal of verification of double criminality - Validity)
   (2007/C 140/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Arbitragehof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW

      Defendant: Leden van de Ministerraad
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Arbitragehof — Interpretation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Whether compatible with Article 34(2)(b) EU — Removal of the requirement of double criminality in respect of the offences listed in Article 2(2) of the Decision — Whether compatible with Article 6(2) EU
   Operative part of the judgment
   Examination of the questions submitted has revealed no factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-111/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others (Directive 85/384/EEC — Mutual recognition of qualifications in the field of architecture — Articles 10 and 11(g) — National legislation recognising equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified heritage buildings to architects — Principle of equal treatment — Situation purely internal to a Member State)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others
   (Case C-111/12) (1)

   (Directive 85/384/EEC - Mutual recognition of qualifications in the field of architecture - Articles 10 and 11(g) - National legislation recognising equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified heritage buildings to architects - Principle of equal treatment - Situation purely internal to a Member State)
   2013/C 114/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Venezia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Padova, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Treviso, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Vicenza, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Verona, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Rovigo, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Belluno

      Defendants: Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia, Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori, Ordine degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori della Provincia di Verona, Alessandro Mosconi, Comune di San Martino Buon Albergo, Istituzione di Ricovero e di Educazione di Venezia (IRE), Ordine degli Architetti della Provincia di Venezia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15) — Mutual recognition of qualifications in the architectural sector — National legislation which reserves to architects alone the right to carry out work on buildings designated as artistic cultural assets — Examination, on a case-by-case basis, of the suitability of those holding architectural and engineering qualifications obtained in other Member States to carry out such work

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services must be interpreted as precluding a national provision in accordance with which persons holding a qualification issued by a Member State other than the host Member State enabling the holder to take up activities in the field of architecture and expressly referred to in Article 11 thereof, may exercise, in that latter Member State, activities relating to buildings of artistic interest only in so far as they show, where necessary by way of a specific examination of their professional suitability, that they have special qualifications in the field of cultural assets.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  8 November 2005  in Case C-293/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation Ltd v States of Jersey and Others (Legislation on the export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom — 1972 Act of Accession — Protocol No 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man — Regulation No 706/73 — Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 29 EC — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties — Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 8 November 2005
   in Case C-293/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation Ltd v States of Jersey and Others (1)

   (Legislation on the export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom - 1972 Act of Accession - Protocol No 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man - Regulation No 706/73 - Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 29 EC - Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties - Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions)
   (2006/C 10/01)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-293/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Royal Court of Jersey (Channel Islands), made by decision of 5 August 2002, received at the Court on 13 August 2002, in the proceedings between Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation Ltd and States of Jersey, Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, and Top Produce Ltd, Fairview Farm Ltd, interveners — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The combined provisions of Article 29 EC and Article 1 of Protocol No 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties are to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which:

                           —

                           on the one hand, prohibits, with penalties imposed for non-compliance, Jersey producers from offering for export or exporting their potatoes to the United Kingdom market unless they are registered with a body such as the Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board and have entered into a marketing agreement with it for the purpose of determining, in particular, the areas which may be planted with crops for export as well as the identity of those authorised to acquire those crops, and,

                           —

                           on the other hand, prohibits, also with penalties imposed for non-compliance, all marketing organisations from effecting such exports unless they are party to a management agreement with that same body for the purpose of determining, in particular, the identity of the sellers from whom it is permissible for them to obtain their supplies.

               2.

               The combined provisions of Articles 23 EC and 25 EC and Article 1 of Protocol No 3 are to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which confers on a body such as the Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board the power to impose on Jersey potato producers a contribution, the amount of which is fixed by reference to the quantities of potatoes produced by the parties concerned and exported to the United Kingdom.

               3.

               Community law precludes a contribution levied under the same conditions, the amount of which, however, is fixed by such a body by reference to the agricultural area used by the parties concerned for growing potatoes, to the extent to which the income therefrom serves to finance activities undertaken by that body contrary to Article 29 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-101/12: Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Cham v Council

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/31

         Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Cham v Council
   (Case T-101/12)
   2012/C 151/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.


title: Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-236/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 11
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                           References for a preliminary ruling from the
      proceedings .                                                      Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by orders of that court of
                                                                         6 February 1996 in the cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche
                                                                           Telekom AG and Ute Conze v. Deutsche Telekom AG
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Cases C-234/96 and C-235/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/24 )
— Breach of the EC Treaty or of legal rules for its
      implementation : Article 9 ( 2 ), final clause , of Regulation
      ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( 2 ) provides that a tenderer in an             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
      invitation to tender concerning the sale of beef or veal           the European Communities by orders of the
      into intervention during the 1991 and 1992 financial               Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg ( Higher Labour Court,
      years could submit only one tender per category in                 Hamburg ) of 6 February 1996 , which were received at the
      response to each invitation to tender. There is, in the            Court Registry on 9 July 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the
      Danish Government's view, no basis for assuming that               cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche Telekom AG and Ute Conze
      the definition of 'a tenderer' in Regulation ( EEC )               v. Deutsche Telekom AG on the following questions :
      No 859/89 must be restricted to cover exclusively
      independent legal persons that are not interconnected .            1 . Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty, the Barber Protocol
      The amendments made to Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89                    No 2 and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of
      by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1282/90 ( 3 ) and Regulation                  the European Communities as primary Community law
      ( EEC ) No 2271 /90 (4 ) demonstrate that the purpose of               have priority over the constitutional law ( Article 3 of
      the provision was at all times to limit the number of                  the Grundgesetz ( Basic Law )) and ordinary law
      tenders per tenderer rather than to limit the number of                ( Paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschaftigungsforderungsgesetz
      tenderers . It follows neither from the recitals in the                ( Employment Promotion Law ) and the general principle
      preamble nor from the discussions within the                           of equal treatment in labour law ) in force in Germany,
      Management Committee that tenderers should be                          with the consequence that where the factual
      independent of each other . That requirement first arises              requirements are fulfilled for a claim under Article 119
      in the second subparagraph of Article 11 ( 3 ) of                      of the EC Treaty on the ground of indirect sex
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 ( 5 ). This means that the               discrimination in connection with an occupational
      Danish authorities were not empowered in 1991 and                      old-age pension scheme because of unfavourable
       1 992 to reject tenders from independent legal persons on             treatment of part-time workers, benefits on the basis of
      the ground that they were not independent of another                   constitutional or ordinary rules of national law can also
      tenderer. It is therefore contrary to Community law for                be claimed only under the same restrictive conditions as
      the Commission to argue that the Danish authorities                    apply to a coincident Community law claim under
      were under such an obligation and for it, on the basis of              Article 1 1 9 of the EC Treaty, so that, in divergence from
      that contention, to refuse to allow EAGGF financing of                 the legal assessment otherwise applicable under national
      notified expenditure resulting from a tender effected in               law, even on the basis of grounds of claim under
      accordance with Community law in force .                               national law benefits are owed only for periods of
                                                                             employment after 17 May 1990, subject to the
      In any event, the EAGGF has not incurred a loss in the                 exception for employees who have initiated legal
      present case , and the Commission's straight reduction of              proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim before
      2 % in the expenditure which Denmark notified for                      that date ?
      EAGGF financing therefore amounts to a breach of the
      Treaty or of legal rules for its implementation .                  2 . Does that also apply where , under the concurrent
                                                                             national law basis , there is a claim to equal treatment
— Absence of reasons .                                                       simply because there is objectively unjustified
                                                                             unfavourable treatment because of working part time ,
                                                                             without it being relevant whether there is also indirect
(') OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .                                    sex discrimination on the basis of a numerically
( 2 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989               proportionally greater unfavourable treatment of
      laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention         women workers ?
      measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
      p. 5 ).
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1282/90 of 15 May 1990
      amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( OJ No L 126 , 16 . 5 .
      1990 , p. 31 ).
(4 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2271 /90 of 1 August 1990
      amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/ 89 ( OJ No L 204 , 2 . 8 .
      1990 , p. 45 ).
                                                                         Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the
(5 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 of 1 September             European Communities against the Federal Republic of
      1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council                                    Germany
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 as regards the general and special                             ( Case C-236/96 )
      intervention measures for beef ( OJ No L 225 , 4 . 9 . 1993 ,
      P - 4 ).                                                                                ( 96/C 269/25 )
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/ 12             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
Communities on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the                       competent authorities of a Member State are to have the
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen ,                    same force in other Member States as findings of the
Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European                           competent authorities of each of those Member States ?
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of            (>) OJ No L 38 , 9 . 2 . 1977 , p . 1 .
the Commission, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg .                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 38 , 9 . 2 . 1977 , p . 20 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
       Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
       batteries and accumulators containing certain                      Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Ireland against the
       dangerous substances (') and Commission Directive                             Commission of the European Communities
       93/86/EEC ( 2 ) of 4 October 1993 adapting the                                                 Case C-238/96 )
       aforementioned Council Directive to technical progress,                                         96/C 269/27 )
       the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under the EC Treaty,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       costs .                                                            European Communities on 10 July 1996 by Ireland,
                                                                          represented by Michael A. Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Dublin Castle, Dublin 2 , acting as Agent of Ireland, assisted
                                                                          by Mary Finlay, Senior Counsel and David Barniville,
                                                                          Barrister-at-Law, with an address for service of documents
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5             in Luxembourg at the Embassy of Ireland , 28 route d'Arlon,
of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States to whom               Luxembourg.
directives are addressed to adopt the measures necessary for
the implementation of such directives within the time limits              The applicant claims that the Court should :
prescribed therein . The time limits in question expired on
 18 September 1992 and 31 December 1993 respectively but                  — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
the Federal Republic of Germany has not to date adopted                         establishing the European Community, that
the necessary transposition measures .                                          Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                                the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                       respect of expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51 .                                  of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1 993 ( 1 ) is
                                                                                void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl
                                                                                26 222 656,62 ( being 10 % of the expenditure declared
                                                                                by Ireland for public storage of beef for 1990 ) from the
                                                                                expenditure declared by Ireland for public storage of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel,                       beef for 1992,
Mons, by judgment of that court of 28 June 1 996 in the case
 of Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v.                        — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
                      E. Amelynck and Others                                    establishing the European Community, that
                           ( Case C-237/96 )                                     Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                                the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
                             ( 96/C 269/26 )
                                                                                respect of expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section
                                                                                of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is
 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                         void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl
  ( Court of Appeal ), Mons, of 28 June 1996 , which was                         24 020 455,64 ( being 5 % of the expenditure declared
  received at the Court Registry on 9 July 1996 , for a                          by Ireland for public storage of beef for 1991 ) from the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre des Finances du                      expenditure declared by Ireland for public storage of
  Royaume de Belgique v. E. Amelynck and Others on the                           beef for 1992 ,
  following question :
                                                                           — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
  Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 222/77 (') and ( EEC )                              establishing the European Community, that
  No 223/77 ( 2 ), which lay down the rule that evidence of the                  Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
  Community nature of goods is, without exception , to be                        the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
  furnished solely by transit document T2 or T2 L, consistent                    respect of expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section
  with Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty and are they                           of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
  compatible with Articles 37 ( 2 ) and 39 ( 2 ) of Regulation                   Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is
  ( EEC ) No 222/77, which provide that the findings of the                      void in so far as it purports to disallow the sum of £ Irl


title: Case C-276/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 June 2014  — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-276/14)
   2014/C 303/20
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gmina Wrocław

      Respondent: Minister Finansów

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 4(2), in conjunction with Article 5(3), of the Treaty on European Union, may an organisational entity of a municipality (a local government body in Poland) be regarded as a taxable person for purposes of VAT when it engages in activities other than as a public authority within the meaning of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) notwithstanding the fact that it does not satisfy the criterion of autonomy (independence) set out in Article 9(1) of that directive?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-45/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — HTTS and Bateni v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran — Freezing of funds — Criterion relating to the provision of essential services to IRISL or to entities owned by it, under its control or acting on its behalf — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to respect for family life — Proportionality)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — HTTS and Bateni v Council
   (Case T-45/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran - Freezing of funds - Criterion relating to the provision of essential services to IRISL or to entities owned by it, under its control or acting on its behalf - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to respect for family life - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 363/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and Naser Bateni (Hamburg) (represented initially by M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, subsequently by M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3) in so far as they relate to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Mr Naser Bateni in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Mr Bateni in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Mr Bateni.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.