title: Case T-238/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of the European Central Bank (USE) against the European Central Bank

text:
C 335/44              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.11.2000
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by Zisis Khristou Drouvis                Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Inter-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    national and European Public Services Organisation
                                                                        (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of the European Central
                                                                               Bank (USE) against the European Central Bank
                         (Case T-184/00)
                                                                                (Case T-238/00)
                         (2000/C 335/83)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/84)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                 (Language of the case: German)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 2000 by Zisis Khristou
Drouvis, resident at Odos Parmenidou 7, Marousi, Attica,                An action against the European Central Bank was brought
Greece, represented by Ioannis Stamouolis, of the Athens Bar,           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            on 11 September 2000 by the International and European
Myriam Pierrat, 2 Place Winston Churchill, L-2014 Luxem-                Public Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of
bourg.                                                                  the European Central Bank (USE), Frankfurt am Main, Germ-
                                                                        any, represented by Christian Roth, Tanja Raab-Rhein and
                                                                        Michael Roth, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     hold his application lawful and well founded;                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the amendment of the measure of November 1999               —     annul the decision of the defendant of 7 July 2000,
      determining his pension, so that it is set at a rate equal to
      the rate for persons who establish their residence in the
      United Kingdom;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     otherwise, and purely in the alternative, order the reset-
      ting of his pension at the level paid to persons who have
      established their residence in Belgium.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                The applicants are trades unions which represent employees
                                                                        of the ECB. They seek the annulment of a letter of the Vice-
                                                                        President of the ECB refusing to act on certain requests from
The applicant challenges the measure determining his monthly            the applicants. The applicants had, in previous correspondence,
pension, to which the ‘weighting’ laid down for Greece was              requested the defendant, first, to revoke certain parts of its Staff
applied; that weighting is equal to 86,5 % of the pension paid          Rules, since, in the applicants’ submission, those provisions
to persons who have established their residence in Belgium,             inadmissibly restricted the staff’s right to strike. Second, the
who are entitled to 100 % of the resulting pension.                     applicants had requested that a provision be inserted in the
                                                                        Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB to enable the
                                                                        Conditions of Employment to be amended by collective
The applicant submits in that regard that Article 82 of the             agreements.
Staff Regulations, which requires pensions to be ‘weighted’
depending on the place where the pensioner proposes to
establish his residence, is contrary to the provisions of the           In the application it is submitted that the letter of the Vice-
European Convention on Human Rights, which constitute                   President should be regarded as a decision of the defendant.
‘general principles of Community law’ and offends against the           That decision infringes, in the performance of the contract,
principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s right to               applicable legal rules and fails to recognise, in particular, the
freedom of movement and establishment in the territory of               importance of the fundamental right of freedom of association.
the Member States of the Union; for those reasons it is invalid.        In the exercise of its discretion, the defendant has given
                                                                        consideration exclusively to its interests as an employer. It has
                                                                        thereby failed to appreciate that, in laying down its general
                                                                        Conditions of Employment, it must also take account of the
                                                                        rights of trades unions.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 335/45
Furthermore, the Executive Board of the ECB was not com-                The applicant submits that the two conditions laid down
petent to adopt Articles 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.4.7 of the Staff            in Article 13 are satisfied, namely the existence of special
Rules. The same is true of the refusal of the application to            circumstances and the absence of any obvious negligence or
insert in the Conditions of Employment, by decision of the              deception. It claims that it was the Japanese producer who
Governing Council of the ECB, provisions on collective                  failed properly to execute the undertaking measure. The
agreements. The refusal of the applicants’ requests in that             applicant exercised all due care and was an innocent victim of
respect could not issue from the Vice-President of the ECB.             fraud.
The applicants submit, finally, that the decision does not              Moreover, the Commission failed to comply with its obligation
contain a sufficient statement of reasons. It merely states that        effectively to monitor the undertaking measures. It is inequi-
the defendant finds the applicants’ proposal inappropriate.             table to require the applicant to bear a loss that it would not
There is no explanation as to the considerations on which the           otherwise have incurred had the Commission and the Japanese
defendant bases that statement.                                         producers properly carried out their obligations as defined in
                                                                        the price-undertaking measures.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/90 of 23 July 1990 imposing
                                                                            a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain types of
                                                                            electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs (dynamic random
                                                                            access memories) originating in Japan and collecting definitively
                                                                            the provisional duty, OJ 1990 L 193, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by SCI UK Limited                          repayment or remission of import or export duties, OJ 1979
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        L 175, p. 1.
                        (Case T-239/00)
                        (2000/C 335/85)
                                                                        Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Lavoratori Portuali s.c.a r.l. and Others against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               (Cases T-242/00, T-243/00, T-257/00, T-258/00, T-259/00,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                   T-265/00 and T-267/00)
European Communities on 28 August 2000 by SCI UK Limited
(Irvine, United Kingdom), represented by Mr. Leslie Allen, of                                     (2000/C 335/86)
Ernst & Young, London.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the Commission decision of 29 June 2000                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      (C(2000) 1684 final) addressed to the United Kingdom              European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
      of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning an               Lavoratori Portuali San Marco Venezia a r.l. and Others,
      application for the repayment of import duty.                     represented by Andrea Bortoluzzi and Chiara Montagner, of
                                                                        the Venice Bar.
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant imported computer components, including                   —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
dynamic random access memories (‘DRAMS’) originating in                       2000/394/EEC;
Japan. Pursuant to Council Regulation No 2112/90 (1), those             —     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of the decision
imports were subject to a 60 % anti-dumping duty, which
was, however, not levied upon the presentation of price-                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
undertaking documents issued by the Japanese producers.
Subsequent to a criminal investigation it appeared that some
certificates issued to the applicant were invalid for various           Pleas in law and main arguments
reasons and had been fraudulently used. HM Customs & Excise
therefore issued to the applicant post clearance demands in             The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
the amount of anti-dumping duty unpaid. Subsequently, the               Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
British authorities submitted an application to the Commission          Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
for a decision as to whether the repayment of import
duties was justified on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation           (1) not yet published.
No 1430/79 (2). That application was rejected by the contested
decision.


title: Case C-330/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the case of Hotel Bellavista di Litterini and Others against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento

text:
4.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/21
Action brought on 1 September 1999 by the Italian                      The decision is unlawful in that it infringes and misapplies
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-                   Articles 87 and 88 EC and the EEA Agreement, both substan-
                                ties                                   tively and procedurally, and there is no adequate statement of
                                                                       reasons concerning the recovery of the aid at issue.
                         (Case C-328/99)
                        (1999/C 352/30)
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 September
                                                                       order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the case of Hotel
1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by its Agent,
                                                                       Bellavista di Litterini and Others against Ufficio Imposte
Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvoca-
                                                                       Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle
to dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                                Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento
the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaide.
                                                                                (Case C-330/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 352/31)
— Annul Decision C(1999) 1524 Final of the Commission of               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the European Communities of 2 June 1999, to the extent            European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
     to which it is contested in these proceedings;                    ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
                                                                       Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 1999, received
— In the alternative, annul the part of the said decision which        at the Court Registry on 2 September 1999, for a preliminary
     directs that sums constituting unlawful aid in relation to        ruling in the case of Hotel Bellavista di Litterini and Others v
     REL action in 1996 are to be recovered from Seleco;               Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di
                                                                       Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento on the
                                                                       following question:
— In the further alternative, annul the part of the said decision
     which directs that sums constituting unlawful aid are to be       ‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
     recovered from Seleco Multimedia Srl and from any other           Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
     undertaking which has benefited from asset transfers in           the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
     the operations concerned;                                         No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                       consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                       contributions of 1 %?’
                                                                       (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
The decision is unlawful in that it infringes and misapplies
Articles 87 and 88 EC (ex Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty)
and the corresponding provisions of the EEA Agreement
because it treats as unlawful aid the assistance referred to           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
above provided by REL (Ristrutturazione Elettronica SpA) and           gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 1 September
FRIULA, despite the fact that the aid from FRIULA cannot be            1999 in the appeal proceedings brought by Energie
regarded as State aid and despite the fact that in any event the       Steiermark Holding AG against Finanzlandesdirektion für
aid in both cases is consistent with that which might have                                          Steiermark
been provided (and in fact was provided in parallel) by private
investors operating under the normal conditions of a market
economy.                                                                                (Case C-339/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/32)
The decision is unlawful through lack of an adequate statement
of the reasons on which it is based (the reasons given are             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
inadequate, contradictory and manifestly illogical) because it         European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
treats the aid as unlawful without giving an appropriate and           hof (Higher Administrative Court), Austria, of 1 September
coherent explanation, taking account not only of the assistance        1999, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 1999,
given on a coordinated basis by private investors but also of          for a preliminary ruling in the appeal proceedings brought by
that from those deemed to be public investors without there            Energie Steiermark Holding AG against Finanzlandesdirektion
being any appreciable strategic differences between the two            für Steiermark (Tax Board for the Land of Styria) on the
categories.                                                            following questions:


title: Case C-351/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2011 — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2011 — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-351/11)
   2011/C 282/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KGH Belgium NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Article 217(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the practical procedures for the entry in the accounts of the amounts of duty, the Member States can confine themselves to including in their national legislation provisions stipulating merely:

                           —

                           that, for the purposes of such national legislation, ‘entry in the accounts’ is to mean ‘the entry, in the accounts or on any alternative medium, of the amount of duty corresponding to a customs debt’ — in this case, Article 1(6) of the General Law on customs and excise duty (Algemene Wet inzake douane en accijnzen), coordinated by the Royal Decree of 18 July 1977 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 21 September 1977, p. 11425), confirmed by the Law of 6 July 1978 on customs and excise duty (Wet inzake douane en accijnzen) (Belgisch Staatsblad of 12 August 1978, p. 9013) and replaced, with effect from 1 January 1994, by Article 1(4) of the Law amending the general law on customs and excise duty (Wet tot wijziging van de algemene wet inzake douane en accijnzen) (Belgisch Staatsblad of 30 December 1993, p. 29031);
                           and

                           —

                           that the rules relating to entry in the accounts and conditions of payment of the amounts of duty payable pursuant to a customs debt are laid down in the regulations of the European Communities — in this case, Article 3 of the General Law on customs and excise duty, coordinated by the Royal Decree of 18 July 1977 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 21 September 1977, p. 11425), confirmed by the Law of 6 July 1978 on customs and excise duty (Belgisch Staatsblad of 12 August 1978, p. 9013), as amended, with effect from 1 July 1990, by Article 72 of the Law of 22 December 1989 relating to tax provisions (Wet houdende fiscale bepalingen) (Belgisch Staatsblad of 29 December 1989, p. 21141),
                           or must the Member States, in implementing Article 217(2) of the Community Customs Code, determine in their national legislation how the entry in the accounts provided for in Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code is to be effected in practice, so that a debtor can ascertain whether such entry in the accounts has actually been effected by the customs authorities?

               2.

               Is Article 217(2) of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation merely provides:

                           —

                           that, for the purposes of such national legislation, ‘entry in the accounts’ is to mean ‘the entry, in the accounts or on any alternative medium, of the amount of duty corresponding to a customs debt’ — in this case, Article 1(6) of the General Law on customs and excise duty, coordinated by the Royal Decree of 18 July 1977 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 21 September 1977, p. 11425), confirmed by the Law of 6 July 1978 on customs and excise duty (Belgisch Staatsblad of 12 August 1978, p. 9013) and replaced, with effect from 1 January 1994, by Article 1(4) of the Law amending the general law on customs and excise duty (Belgisch Staatsblad of 30 December 1993, p. 29031);
                           and

                           —

                           that the rules relating to the entry in the accounts and conditions of payment of the amounts of duty payable pursuant to a customs debt are laid down in the regulations of the European Communities — in this case, Article 3 of the General Law on customs and excise duty, coordinated by the Royal Decree of 18 July 1977 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 21 September 1977, p. 11425), confirmed by the Law of 6 July 1978 on customs and excise duty (Belgisch Staatsblad of 12 August 1978, p. 9013), as amended, with effect from 1 July 1990, by Article 72 of the Law of 22 December 1989 relating to tax provisions (Belgisch Staatsblad of 29 December 1989, p. 21141),
                           the customs authorities can maintain that the entry by those authorities of the amount of duty on a ‘1552 B form’ or in a ‘PLDA’ (paperless customs and excise duty) debt database, or any other registration or entry by the customs authorities of the amount of duty on any other possible medium constitutes an entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code?

               3.

               On the assumption that the entry by the customs authorities of the amount of duty on a 1552 B form may be deemed to constitute an entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code, is Article 217 of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that only the entry on a 1552 B form of the precise amount of the duty arising pursuant to a customs debt constitutes an entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code?


title: Case T-121/02: Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 144/59
Mark or sign right cited      The German national figurative              but was mislaid within the Commission’s services. The appli-
in opposition:                marks ‘a’ for goods in Class 25             cant was thus unable properly to discharge his financial
                              (inter alia, clothing)                      obligations and was required to pay a penalty. As the
                                                                          administrative fault on the Commission’s part is proved, the
Decision of Opposition        Refusal of application for regis-           applicant is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and
Division:                     tration of mark                             non-pecuniary harm sustained.
Decision of Board of          Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division with respect
                              to goods in Classes 9, 16, 35 and
                              41; affirmation of the decision
                              with respect to goods in Class 25
Pleas in law:                 —     No similarity with the rel-
                                    evant goods in Class 25
                                                                          Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.
                              —     Significant difference from             against the Commission of the European Communities
                                    the figurative marks
                                                                                (Case T-121/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/115)
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-116/02)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2002/C 144/114)                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by Professor Franco Gallo, Gabriele Escalar and
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Professor Adriano Rossi, Lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu,                   —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, avocat.                      Communities of 11 December 2001 no C54/A/2000/EC,
                                                                                unpublished, declaring incompatible with the internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     market the system of State aid laid down by Italian
                                                                                legislation in the form of tax advantages for banks and
                                                                                banking institutions;
—     order the Commission to make reparation for the pecuni-
      ary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicant,
      amounting to EUR 353;                                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                                and all consequential costs.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official of the Commission and at the                 The main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case
material time was on temporary secondment to the Court of                 T-36/02 ABI v Commission (1).
Justice.
In support of his claim for damages, the applicant alleges that           (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002, p. 14.
the Commission’s mail service received a letter from an Italian
professional body addressed to the applicant and containing a
demand for payment. The letter did not reach the applicant


title: Case C-216/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci
   (Case C-216/14)
   2014/C 253/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Laufen

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Gavril Covaci

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Traunstein

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1(2), 2(1) and 8 of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding a court order that requires, under Paragraph 184 of the German Law on the Judicial System, accused persons to bring an appeal only in the language of the court, here in German, in order for it to be effective?

               2.

               Are Articles 2, 3(1)(c), 6(1) and 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (2) to be interpreted as precluding the accused from being required to appoint a person authorised to accept service, where the period for bringing an appeal begins to run upon service on the person authorised and ultimately it is irrelevant whether the accused is at all aware of the offence of which he is accused?

      (1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.


title: Case T-176/00: Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 285/11
The applicant asserts, first of all, that the two directives referred      In August 1993 the applicant, a Community Medical Specialist
to above infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate           in Rheumatology submitted to the Commission under
expectations. It was legitimately entitled to expect, first, that          Article 3(2) of Council regulation No. 17 an application for a
the prohibition of the hormones at issue was merely a                      finding that the GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the
temporary measure which was to apply pending the pro-                      EEC Treaty.
duction of an appropriate scientific assessment of the question
whether or not they presented a danger to human health and,
                                                                           The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
second, that the scope of the derogations provided for in
                                                                           in case T-286/97 Goldstein/Commission (1). According to the
Directive 88/146 would be gradually extended to cover the
                                                                           applicant, the conditions laid down in Article 232 EC are
categories of animals which it proposed to import from the
                                                                           satisfied because 80 months have elapsed since it submitted,
United States into the Community.
                                                                           on 20 September 1995, his observations on the Commission’s
                                                                           letter of 9 February 1995 under Article 6 of Council Regulation
The applicant also pleads infringement of the WTO agree-                   No 99/63.
ments. It states in that regard that the European Union has
been censured by the dispute-settlement body of the WTO for
having enacted Directives 81/602, 88/146 and 96/22, on                     (1) OJ EC C 7, of 10.1.1998, p. 25.
account of infringement of the SPS agreement.
(1) OJ L 70 of 16.3.1988, p. 16.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December) JO L 302, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 125 of 23.5.1996, p. 3.
                                                                           Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-176/00)
Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Goldstein
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                (2000/C 285/23)
                          (Case T-175/00)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 285/22)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV, a
                   (Language of the case: English)                         company incorporated under Netherlands law, established in
                                                                           Amsterdam, represented by H.J. Bronkhorst and L.H. van
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Lennep, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo
European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Gold-                      Hemmer.
stein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
Merriman White, London.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the decision of 24 February 2000 addressed to it
                                                                                by the Commission of the European Communities, in so
—     declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the                         far as Article 1(2) of that decision is concerned;
      Commission has failed to act by not having delivered a
      decision on the applicant’s complaint lodged with the                —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
      Commission on 10 August 1993;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In Article 1(2) of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                           found that remission of import duties in respect of a specific
                                                                           sum was not justified.
The applicant challenges the inaction of the Commission in
relation to one complaint, focused on the alleged anti-
competitive practices on the part of the General Medical                   The applicant’s claim is based on the following grounds:
Council (GMC), a statutory body which regulates the medical
profession in the territory of the United Kingdom.                         (a)   violation of the rights of the defence:
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.10.2000
(b) infringement, resulting from misapplication of the law,           According to the Commission, it is apparent from the file
      of, respectively, Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC)        received by it from the Netherlands authorities that there can
      No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or                   be no question of any manipulation on the part of Cargill. Be
      remission of import or export duties, as last amended by        that as it may, Cargill did not act with all due care in the
      Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89, Article 239 of Council             present case.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
      lishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs
                                                                      However, according to Cargill, there can be no question of its
      Code’) and Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regu-
                                                                      having failed to exercise due care, since its authorisation to
      lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
                                                                      engage in inward processing presupposed at the same time the
      provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      possible application of the system of equivalent compensation.
      (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
      Code (‘the implementing regulation’);
                                                                      Moreover, Cargill previously made repeated approaches to the
                                                                      competent Netherlands authorities with a view to obtaining
(c)   infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as laid
                                                                      clarification regarding the question whether or not it had
      down in Article 253 EC;
                                                                      correctly applied the relevant rules concerning inward pro-
                                                                      cessing and equivalent compensation. Cargill cannot be blamed
(d) breach of the principle of proportionality.                       for the fact that the national authorities committed an error;
                                                                      and, moreover, special circumstances exist within the meaning
                                                                      of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 and Article 239 of
Cargill was originally an undertaking engaged in the processing       the Customs Code.
of maize. The end product was glucose. As a result of
low wheat prices and improved processing techniques, the
processing of wheat into glucose subsequently became profit-
able. Following the final stage of the production process, the
same equipment is used without distinction for the two raw
materials.
Cargill imported maize under the inward processing arrange-           Action brought on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Industrie
ments, paying no import duties in respect of the imported             Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl against the Commission of the
quantities. On the other hand, it was obliged to export the                               European Communities
compensating product without any refund within 6 months
after importation.                                                                             (Case T-179/00)
The competent Netherlands authority demanded from the                                          (2000/C 285/24)
applicant payment of a customs debt, stating that, to the extent
that glucose was manufactured from a mixed commodity flow
consisting of maize and wheat, the use of wheat therein                                  (Language of the case: English)
was impermissible under the rules governing the system
of equivalent compensation (Article 9 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2228/91, Article 569 of the implementing regulation and            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 27(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for                European Communities on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Indus-
the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural       trie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, represented by Denis Wael-
products).                                                            broeck and Dirk Brinckman of Liedekerke Simeon Wessing
                                                                      Houthoff, Brussels.
In its decision, the Commission states that the present case
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
concerns a special situation within the meaning of Article 13
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and Article 239 of the
Customs Code respectively. The reasons advanced by it for             —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
that assertion are that Cargill has satisfied all the rules                 request by the applicant to use its logo in the blue box of
laid down under the abovementioned inward processing                        the packaging of the pharmaceutical product OPTRUMA;
arrangements. Moreover, the production process in question
constitutes a normal procedure in the European starch industry        —     subsidiarily declare also the European Commission Guide-
for undertakings which use both maize and wheat as raw                      line on Packaging Information of medical products for
materials for the production of glucose.                                    human use authorised by the Community illegal under
                                                                            Article 241 EC in so far as it could be read as containing
                                                                            a prohibition on the use of the logo by the local
The Commission observes, however, that such a special                       representative or a licensee;
situation may nevertheless give rise to remission of import
duties only if no manipulation or manifest negligence can be          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the present
imputed to the person concerned.                                            proceedings.


title: Case C-120/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — Christoph Klein v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Directive 93/42/EEC — Articles 8 and 18 — Medical devices — Inaction by the Commission following notification of a decision to prohibit placing on the market — Limitation period — Suspensory effect of an application for legal aid on the limitation period — Safeguard clause procedure)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — Christoph Klein v European Commission
   (Case C-120/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Directive 93/42/EEC - Articles 8 and 18 - Medical devices - Inaction by the Commission following notification of a decision to prohibit placing on the market - Limitation period - Suspensory effect of an application for legal aid on the limitation period - Safeguard clause procedure))
   (2015/C 205/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H. Ahlt and M. Ahlt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Klein v Commission (T-309/10, EU:T:2014:19) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action in that it sought that the European Commission be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Mr Christoph Klein from 15 September 2006;

               2.

               dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               4.

               reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.06.2014.


title: Case T-251/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2009 — Mayer-Falk v Commission (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the fight against organised crime and the judicial reform in Bulgaria — Refusal of access — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the dispute — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2009 — Mayer-Falk v Commission
   (Case T-251/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the fight against organised crime and the judicial reform in Bulgaria - Refusal of access - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the dispute - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 180/93
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Mayer-Falk (Bruchsal, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 November 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to two documents relating to the fight against organised crime and to judicial reform in Bulgaria.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.09.2008.


title: Case T-226/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ALASKA — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)
   (Case T-226/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ALASKA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 205/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (Ebersburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Wadenbach, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Schwarzbräu GmbH (Zusmarshausen, Germany) (represented by: L. Schlarmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Schwarzbräu GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-359/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU word mark TestBild — Earlier national figurative marks test — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Inherent distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)
   (Case T-359/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU word mark TestBild - Earlier national figurative marks test - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Inherent distinctive character - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Axel Springer SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Stiftung Warentest (Berlin) (represented: initially by R. Mann, J. Smid, T. Brach, H. Nieland and A.-K. Kornrumpf and subsequently by J. Smid, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2016 (Case R 555/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Stiftung Warentest and Axel Springer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 May 2016 (Case R 555/2015-4), in so far as it found that there was a likelihood of confusion in respect of ‘printed matter, in particular test periodicals, consumer information, prospectuses, catalogues, books, newspapers and periodicals; instructional and teaching material (except apparatus)’, in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement of 15 June 1957 concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-448/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO – Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Mr. KEBAB — Earlier Spanish figurative mark MISTER KEBAP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO – Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB)
   (Case T-448/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Mr. KEBAB - Earlier Spanish figurative mark MISTER KEBAP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/63)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Mr. Kebab s. r. o. (Košice-Západ, Slovakia) (represented by: L. Vojčík, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and R. Cottrellovú, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mister Kebap, SL (Finestrat, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the 2nd Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2006 (Case R 987/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mister Kebap and Mr. Kebab.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr. Kebab s. r. o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case C-375/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 251/8               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
—     Infringement/misapplication of Article 8(2) of Regulation        Appeal brought on 10 September 2003 by Rafael Pérez
      No 729/70 since there was an error as to the facts in so         Escolar against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by
      far as misassessment of irregularities or negligence is          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      concerned;                                                       (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01
                                                                       between Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
—     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
      since there is an insufficient statement of reasons                                      (Case C-379/03 P)
      (Article 253 EC).
                                                                                (2003/C 251/17)
                                                                       An appeal against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01 between
                                                                       Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission                   European Communities on 10 September 2003 by Rafael
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                    Pérez Escolar represented by Fernando Moreno Pardo.
                         of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-375/03)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/16)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                    —     Accept the application, its copies and annexes, allow the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          present appeal subject to the relevant procedure and set
Communities on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of                         aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
the European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as                  2003, by declaring admissible the action for failure to act
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            brought before the Court of First Instance, and in the
                                                                             event that it considers it appropriate, hear and decide the
                                                                             case itself by declaring that the Commission, by failing to
                                                                             adopt any decision whatsoever on the complaint submit-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       ted by the appellant's representatives on 23 February
the Court should:                                                            1999 on the State aid granted by the Banco Español de
                                                                             Credito S.A. and Banco Santander S.A., had failed to act;
1.   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of            —     Alternatively, in the event that the Court does not con-
     the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside                    sider it appropriate to hear and determine the case itself,
     inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles                 the Court should refer the case back to the Court of First
     circulating in the Community (1) and, in any event, by                  Instance in order for it to hear and determine the sub-
     failing to communicate them to the Commission,                          stance of the case;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;
                                                                       —     In any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities to pay all the costs arising from the pro-
2.   order Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                      ceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired
on 10 August 2002.
                                                                       The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
                                                                       applicant did not have locus standi to bring an action for failure
                                                                       to act against the Commission for not adopting any decision
(1) OJ L 203 of 10.08.2000, p. 1.                                      whatever on the complaint submitted. The Court of First
                                                                       Instance held that the criteria for locus standi for the purposes
                                                                       of an action for failure to act under Article 232 EC are the


title: Case T-274/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2011 by Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10, Mioni v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/32

         Appeal brought on 25 May 2011 by Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10, Mioni v Commission
   (Case T-274/11 P)
   2011/C 232/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul in its entirety the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 15 March 2011, notified by registered letter on 15 March 2011, dismissing the appellant’s action of 7 May 2010;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, including costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, such as travel and accommodation costs, plus lawyers’ fees pursuant to Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant makes two pleas in support of the appeal.

               1.

               The first plea claims infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and distortion of the evidence produced before the Civil Service Tribunal. The appellant accuses the Civil Service Tribunal, first, of misinterpreting the documents numbered 22, 23, 24 and 25 on his file by deciding, at paragraph 31 of its judgment, that his presence in France between 1999 and 2000 could not be assimilated to a wish of the applicant to move the centre of his interests to his home country and, secondly, of making an incoherent assessment of the concept of habitual residence in paragraphs 29, 31 and 33 of the judgment under appeal.

               2.

               The second plea claims distortion of the evidence produced before the Civil Service Tribunal and an insufficient statement of reasons, in that the Civil Service Tribunal justifies the belated withdrawal of the benefit of the expatriation allowance ‘by a misunderstanding concerning the place where the applicant had obtained his baccalaureate’. The appellant accuses the Tribunal of not taking document 15 of his file into account, not replying to point 31 of his action and thus making clearly incorrect findings.


title: Case F-64/14: Action brought on 12 July 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/31

         Action brought on 12 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-64/14)
   2014/C 361/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to admit the applicant to the translation tests of EPSO competition AD/263/13 to establish a reserve recruitment list of Italian translators.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 19/11/2013 not to admit the applicant to the translation tests;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of 2/4/2014 dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-149/12: Action brought on 14 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/38

         Action brought on 14 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-149/12)
   2013/C 108/89
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to recover the sum of EUR 500 per month by withholding that sum from the applicant’s invalidity allowance during the period April to June 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, contained in the applicant’s pension statement for the month of April 2012, to withhold EUR 500 from the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled in respect of that month;

               —

               Annul the decision, contained in the applicant’s pension statement for the month of May 2012, to withhold EUR 500 from the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled in respect of that month;

               —

               Annul the decision, contained in the applicant’s pension statement for the month of June 2012, to withhold EUR 500 from the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled in respect of that month;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the complaints made against the decision referred to above;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the following sums: EUR 500, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 May 2012 until actual payment of that sum; EUR 500, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 June 2012 until actual payment of that sum; EUR 500, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 July 2012 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 1999 in Case C-251/97: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) — Concept of aid — Relief on social security contributions in consideration for the costs arising for undertakings from collective agreements concerning the reorganisation and reduction of working time)

text:
C 6/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.1.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     M. Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and C. Gómez de la Cruz) —
                                                                           application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts
                                                                           presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
                        of 5 October 1999                                  for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                                                                           Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30)
in Case C-308/95: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-                        — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
          mission of the European Communities (1)                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and J.L. Murray (Rappor-
                                                                           teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
(European Regional Development Fund — Projects co-                         Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1999,
          financed by the ERDF — Closure decision)                         in which it:
                           (2000/C 6/06)                                   1. Annuls Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997
                                                                               on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the Guarantee Section
                                                                               of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                               (EAGGF) to the extent to which it failed to charge definitively to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         the EAGGF the sum of ESP 58 804 012 in respect of financial
                   in the European Court Reports)                              compensation advanced by the Kingdom of Spain in respect of
                                                                               processing of citrus fruit;
In Case C-308/95: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
J.S. van den Oosterkamp and M.A. Fierstra) v Commission of                 2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
the European Communities (Agents: E. Mennens and P. Oliver)
— application for annulment of the Commission’s letter dated               3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
28 July 1995 on the closure of projects co-financed by the
European Regional Development Fund — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                    (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
Chamber, G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm
and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ No C 299 of 11.11.1995.
                                                                                of 5 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-251/97: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   87 EC) — Concept of aid — Relief on social security
                                                                           contributions in consideration for the costs arising for
                        of 5 October 1999                                  undertakings from collective agreements concerning the
                                                                                reorganisation and reduction of working time)
in Case C-240/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/08)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Export
refunds for butter, beef and veal — Aid for processing of
                            citrus fruit)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                           (2000/C 6/07)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-251/97: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
                   in the European Court Reports)                          and G. Mignot) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. Rozet) — application for annulment of Commission
In Case C-240/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                Decision 97/811/EC of 9 April 1997 concerning aid granted
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      by France to the textile, clothing, leather and footwear
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 6/5
industries (OJ 1997 L 334, p. 25), — the Court, composed of:            composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch          Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almei-          J.L. Murray and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
da, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and                 eral; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,          given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
Registrar; has given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which
it:                                                                     1. Article 11(4) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of
                                                                             11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member
1. Dismisses the application;                                                States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for
                                                                             application of the common system of value added tax, authorised
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Member States to introduce or retain, and Article 17(6) of Sixth
                                                                             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.                                                   turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment, authorises them to retain, general exclusions
                                                                             from the right to deduct the value added tax payable on the
                                                                             purchase of motor cars used by a taxable person for the purposes
                                                                             of his taxable transactions, even though
                                                                             — those cars were essential tools in the business of the taxable
                                                                                person concerned, or
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             — those cars could not, in a specific case, be used for private
                                                                                purposes by the taxable person concerned.
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                        2. On a proper construction of Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive
                                                                             77/388, Member States may retain the exclusions from the
                      of 5 October 1999
                                                                             right to deduct value added tax referred to in its second
                                                                             subparagraph, even though the Council did not decide, before the
in Case C-305/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    expiry of the period laid down in the first subparagraph, which
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales)): Royscot                            expenditure should not be eligible for deduction of value added
Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd, Allied                       tax.
Domecq plc, T.C. Harrison Group Ltd v Commissioners
                    of Customs & Excise (1)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
(VAT — Article 11(1) and (4) of the Second Directive —
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive — Right of
deduction — Exclusions by national rules predating the
                        Sixth Directive)
                         (2000/C 6/09)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 5 October 1999
                                                                        in Case C-327/97 P: Christos Apostolidis and Others v
In Case C-305/97, reference to the Court under Article 177 of                   Commission of the European Communities (1)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling           (Appeal — Remuneration — Weighting coefficient —
in the proceedings pending before that court between Royscot             Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance)
Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd, Allied Domecq
plc, T.C. Harrison Group Ltd and Commissioners of Customs                                           (2000/C 6/10)
& Excise — on the interpretation of Article 11(4) of Second
Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning                                     (Language of the case: French)
turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of
the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special
Edition 1967, p. 16) and of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                                    in the European Court Reports)
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-              In Case C-327/97 P: Christos Apostolidis and Others, officials
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                 and members of the temporary staff of the Commission of the


title: Case T-540/08: Action brought on 12 December 2008 — Esso e.a./Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/56

         Action brought on 12 December 2008 — Esso e.a./Commission
   (Case T-540/08)
   (2009/C 44/98)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Esso Société Anonyme Française (Courbevoie, France), Esso Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA (Antwerpen, Belgium), Exxon Mobil Corp. (Irving, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, R. Subiotto, L.-P. Rudolf, M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               partially annul the Commission's decision of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes);

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision, and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission's decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes (‘the contested decision’) and a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.
   In support of their claims, the applicants put forward the following two main pleas in law:
   By their first plea, the applicants submit that the decision errs in law by basing the calculation of Esso Société Anonyme Française's (‘Esso’) fine on a methodology that fails to reflect the undisputed fact that, before the merger between Exxon and Mobil, Exxon's paraffin wax business did not participate in the infringement. The applicants claim that under the contested decision, Esso is fined as if Exxon had participated in the infringement for seven years prior to the merger, even though the contested decision acknowledges it did not do so. As a result, the contested decision overstates the relative weight of Esso in the infringement and violates the principles of equality and proportionality, as well as Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and the 2006 Fining Guidelines (2).
   By their second plea, the applicants submit that the contested decision errs in law by finding that the applicants' participation in the paraffin wax part of the infringement ended only in November 2003. In particular, the applicants contend that the contested decision fails to meet the Commission's burden of proof in establishing the duration of the applicant's participation in the paraffin wax part of the infringement. Moreover, the applicants claim that the contested decision fails to draw the proper conclusions from the undisputed fact that the applicants did not participate in — and were not informed of the outcome of — any ‘Technical Meetings’ held after 27/28 February 2003.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210 p. 2)


title: Case C-34/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail, Brussels (Belgium) made on 26 January 2009 — Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail, Brussels (Belgium) made on 26 January 2009 — Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)
   (Case C-34/09)
   2009/C 90/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail, Brussels

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano

      Defendant: Office national de l’Emploi (ONEM)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, or one or more of them when read separately or in conjunction, confer a right of residence upon a citizen of the Union in the territory of the Member State of which that citizen is a national, irrespective of whether he has previously exercised his right to move within the territory of the Member States?

               2.

               Must Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (adopted by the European Council of Nice on 7 December 2000, published in its current version in OJ 2007 C 303), be interpreted as meaning that the right which they recognise, without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, in favour of any citizen of the Union to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States means that, where that citizen is an infant dependent on a relative in the ascending line who is a national of a non-member State, the infant’s enjoyment of the right of residence in the Member State in which he resides and of which he is a national must be safeguarded, irrespective of whether the right to move freely has been previously exercised by the child or through his legal representative, by coupling that right of residence with the useful effect whose necessity is recognised by Community case-law (Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen), by granting the relative in the ascending line who is a national of a non-member State, upon whom the child is dependent and who has sufficient resources and sickness insurance, the secondary right of residence which that same national of a non-member State would have if the child who is dependent upon him were a Union citizen who is not a national of the Member State in which he resides?

               3.

               Must Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the right of a minor child who is a national of a Member State to reside in the territory of the State in which he resides must entail the grant of an exemption from holding a work permit to the relative in the ascending line who is a national of a non-member State, upon whom the child is dependent and who, were it not for the requirement to hold a work permit under the national law of the Member State in which he resides, fulfils the condition of sufficient resources and the possession of sickness insurance by virtue of paid employment making him subject to the social security system of that State, so that the child’s right of residence is coupled with the useful effect recognised by Community case-law (Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen) in favour of a minor child who is a European citizen with a nationality other than that of the Member State in which he resides and is dependent upon a relative in the ascending line who is a national of a non-member State?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 21 March 2002 in Case C-36/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 — Aid to publicly-owned shipyards — Declaration of compatibility of aid to the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain — Failure to comply with conditions — Recovery)

text:
C 118/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18.5.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                14 March 2002
                           21 March 2002                                   in Case C-161/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
in Case C-36/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   European Communities (1)                                Directive 91/676/EEC — Pollution — Protection of waters
                                                                                — Nitrates)
(State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 — Aid to                                                     (2002/C 118/14)
publicly-owned shipyards — Declaration of compatibility of
aid to the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain — Failure to
              comply with conditions — Recovery)                                              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 118/13)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         In Case C-161/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                           (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön), supported by
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde), and by
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: V. Koningsberger and
                   in the European Court Reports)                          H. van den Oosterkamp): Application for a declaration that,
                                                                           by failing to adopt all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                           comply with the obligations laid down in Article 5(4)(a) and
                                                                           point 2 of Annex III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
                                                                           12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
                                                                           against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
In Case C-36/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                 (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
J. Guerra Fernández and K.-D. Borchardt): Application for                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), Presi-
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 Octo-                   dent of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen
ber 1999 on the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of                and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
the publicly-owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22), the                    R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 March 2002,
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                in which it:
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                          administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which                       obligations laid down in Article 5(4)(a) and point 2 of
it:                                                                              Annex III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
                                                                                1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
                                                                                caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                                that Directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                        2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 147 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case C-298/00 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic against the judgement delivered on 15 June 2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.10.2000
(b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97,
                                                                              T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         2.    alternatively, set aside that judgment in so far as it
                                                                              imposes the obligation to recover the aid granted together
Article 32(d) of Italian Law No 82/1963 provides for the                      with interest thereon;
payment of a tax by passengers disembarking or embarking in
the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers           3.    order the Commission of the European Communities to
arrive from, or are travelling to, places in another Member                   pay the costs in any event.
State or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
case of carriage between two places located on Italian territory.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
That manifest difference between tax regimes has a substan-
tially adverse effect on the exercise by the economic operators
concerned of their freedom to provide services, and therefore           The first plea concerns the allegedly erroneous characterisation
constitutes a clear restriction on freedom to provide maritime          of the measures as ‘new’ aid and a lack of reasoning in the
transport passenger services, contrary to Article 1(1) of Regu-         judgment of the Court of First Instance. The aid granted by the
lation No 4055/86.                                                      Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, as provided for by the Laws of
                                                                        1981 and 1985, cannot be regarded as ‘new’, despite having
                                                                        from a chronological standpoint been granted after the entry
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                        into force of Regulation No 1018/68 (1) which opened up the
                                                                        activity in question to competition, since the international
                                                                        road haulage sector could not yet be regarded as having been
                                                                        fully liberalised. Moreover, that aid did not have any effect on
                                                                        intra-Community trade and was not such as to have any
                                                                        impact on competition; the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance does not contain sufficient reasoning on those points.
Appeal brought on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic
against the judgement delivered on 15 June 2000 by the                  The second plea concerns alleged infringement of the principle
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                   of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                    of reasonableness. The effect of the judgment of the Court of
Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97                  First Instance requiring Italy to recover the aid granted from
to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between               1 July 1990 onwards for international transport operations is
Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian                      contrary to the aforesaid principles, in particular because it
Republic, and the Commission of the European Communi-                   was not until November 1995 that the Commission com-
                                  ties                                  menced the procedure contesting that aid. In addition, the
                                                                        operation of the decision will have very grave occupational
                                                                        and social consequences.
                         (Case C-298/00 P)
                          (2000/C 285/08)                               (1) OJ L 175 of 23.7.1968, p. 13.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2000 by
the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97 ,T-600/97 to
T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between
Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian Republic,
and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented by           Action brought on 7 August 2000 by the Commission of
Prof. Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Giacomo               the European Communities against the French Republic
Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
                                                                                (Case C-302/00)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 285/09)
1.    set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 15 June
      2000 by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-298/97,                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 August