title: Case C-355/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 June 2016 — Christian Picart v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 June 2016 — Christian Picart v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-355/16)
   (2016/C 335/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Christian Picart

      Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the right of establishment as a self-employed person, as defined in Articles 1 and 4 of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 and Article 12 of Annex I to that agreement, be regarded as equivalent to the freedom of establishment which Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, guarantees in respect of activities pursued as a self-employed person?

               2.

               In this case, account being taken of the provisions in Article 16 of the agreement, should the case-law deriving from the judgment of 7 September 2006 in Case C-470/04, which was made after the agreement, be applied in the case of a national of a Member State who transferred his residence to Switzerland and who merely keeps his shareholding in companies under the law of that Member State (which gives him a definite influence over the decisions of those companies and enables him to determine their activities), without claiming to have the intention to pursue in Switzerland an activity as a self-employed person which is different to the activity he pursued in the Member State of which he was a national and which consists in the management of his shareholdings?

               3.

               If that right is not equivalent to the freedom of establishment, must it be interpreted in the same way as the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the freedom of establishment in its judgment of 7 September 2006 in Case C-470/04?


title: Case T-378/00: Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicants claims that the Court should:
The applicant states that he was informed in August 1999 of               —     annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
his appointment to the post of head of unit DG XIII/G/2 and                     request submitted by Ms Dubigh on 24 September 1999
of his promotion to grade A3, but that the Director-General                     for the regularisation of her administrative situation by
for Personnel announced to him in February 2000 that he had                     the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary agent
decided to annul those decisions in the light of a complaint                    from 12 May 1997 and the conferment on her of the
submitted by an official who had also applied for the post in                   rights attaching thereto;
question. In the present proceedings, the applicant contests
that decision withdrawing his appointment and promotion.                  —     annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
                                                                                request submitted by Ms Zaur-Gora on 24 September
He maintains that the decision which has been withdrawn:                        1999 for the regularisation of her administrative situation
                                                                                by the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary
—     was not adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff                      agent from 22 May 1997 and the conferment on her of
      Regulations of officials or of vacancy notices 07 of                      the rights attaching thereto;
      2 February 2000, inasmuch as those rules were scrupu-
      lously observed, having regard to the seniority criteria            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      needing to be fulfilled in order to qualify for promotion;
—     was not adopted on the basis of any manifest error of               Pleas in law and main arguments
      assessment in the examination of the comparative merits
      and staff reports of the candidates, or in breach of any of
      the vacancy notices in issue; and                                   The applicants state that, since 12 May and 22 May 1997
                                                                          respectively, they have performed, without interruption, the
—     is not vitiated by any misuse of powers on the part of the          same duties as secretaries/typists in the same units, working
      appointing authority.                                               successively as members of the interim staff and as members
                                                                          of the auxiliary staff. In their view, the formal nature of the
                                                                          contracts and the classification applied to them by the parties
In addition, as regards the contested decision, the applicant
                                                                          had no effect on the de facto circumstances.
pleads:
—     infringement of the right to a fair hearing;                        Thus, the tasks carried out by the applicants are characterised
                                                                          by their continuity; the duties performed by them have been
—     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of            of a permanent nature.
      reasons;
—     infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-           In support of their claims, the applicants plead infringement
      imate expectations; and                                             of the principles of sound administration and proper staff
                                                                          management, together with a misuse of powers in the present
—     infringement of the principles of equal treatment, pro-             case.
      portionality and sound administration.
Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Danielle Dubigh                     Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
and Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the                        ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     European Communities                                                                 ties
                         (Case T-375/00)                                                           (Case T-378/00)
                          (2001/C 45/50)                                                            (2001/C 45/51)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Danielle                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Dubigh, residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, residing              European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and              Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                                     and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Ajour and others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
                                                                          Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
—     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
      person to post COM/001/00 COMP/D/3 ‘Trade and other                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
      services’, being a grade A3 head of unit post;
                                                                          —     annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application                 drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips in respect of the
      of the applicant for the post in question;                                arrears of remuneration due to them for the period from
                                                                                15 May to 31 December 1999 and their pay slips drawn
—     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or                     up since January 2000, pursuant to Council Regulation
      decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of                  No 2700/1999 of 17 December 1999 adjusting with
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                      effect from 1 July 1999 the remuneration and pensions
      the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete                  of officials and other servants of the European Communi-
      information gathered by the defendant in relation to the                  ties and the weightings applied thereto;
      applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
      worry in which he has been placed with regard to his                —     as regards the applicants to whom the decision of
                                                                                14 April 2000 is not addressed, annul the decisions of
      future career;
                                                                                the Commission concerning the drawing-up of their pay
—     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or                      slips since January 2000;
      decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      compensation for the material damage suffered by the
      applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
      candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus          Pleas in law and main arguments
      lost an opportunity of promotion;
                                                                          The applicants in the present case are Commission officials or
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                          temporary staff seconded to the Food and Veterinary Office in
                                                                          Dublin. They have brought their action as a result of the
                                                                          application to them, with effect from 16 May 1999, of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the weightings referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation
                                                                          No 2700/1999 (1).
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                          In the applicants’ view, the Commission has applied a weight-
Case T-376/00 Morello v Commission.
                                                                          ing which does not guarantee officials of the European
                                                                          Communities who are posted to Dublin a standard of living
                                                                          and purchasing power equivalent to that of officials working
                                                                          in Brussels.
                                                                          In support of their application, the applicants plead:
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Agnès Ajour                         —     infringement of Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regu-
and others against the Commission of the European                               lations of officials of the European Communities and of
                           Communities                                          Annex XI to those Regulations, and breach of the
                                                                                principles of good management and sound adminis-
                         (Case T-384/00)                                        tration;
                                                                          —     breach of the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
                          (2001/C 45/52)                                        career prospects for all European officials and freedom of
                                                                                movement for workers.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2700/1999 of
                                                                              17 December 1999 adjusting with effect from 1 July 1999 the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    European Communities and the weightings applied thereto (OJ
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Agnès                             L 327 of 21.12.1999, p. 1).


title: Case C-74/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) (England and Wales) by order of that court of 2 February 1999, in the case of the Queen against 1. Secretary of State for Health, 2. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3. HM Attorney General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 2. Gallaher Ltd, 3. Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American Tobacco Investments Ltd

text:
C 136/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.5.1999
B. The following further question is referred to the Court of           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    Justice only in case Question A is answered in the                  Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
    affirmative:                                                        and Wales) by order of that court of 2 February 1999, in
                                                                        the case of the Queen against 1. Secretary of State for
    Is the obligation described at (A) sufficiently specific and        Health, 2. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3.
    precise for individuals thereby to be given the right to a          HM Attorney General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
    review procedure in accordance with the requirements of             2. Gallaher Ltd, 3. Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American
    Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC, in which the national                               Tobacco Investments Ltd
    court must at least be able to adopt interim measures
    within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive
    89/665/EEC and to annul the contracting authority’s                                           (Case C-74/99)
    award decision, and for individuals to be able to rely in
    proceedings on that obligation as against a Member State?
                                                                                (1999/C 136/17)
C. The following further question, finally, is referred to the
    Court of Justice only in case Question B is answered in the
    affirmative:                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    Is the obligation described at (A) itself sufficiently specific     Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England and
    and precise that the national court must in such proceed-           Wales) of 2 February 1999, which has received at the Court
    ings disregard contrary provisions of national law, observ-         Registry on 2 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
    ance of which would prevent the court from fulfilling that          of The Queen against 1. Secretary of State for Health, 2.
    obligation, and must fulfil that obligation directly as part        Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3. HM Attorney
    of the Community legal order even if national law lacks             General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 2. Gallaher Ltd, 3.
    any basis on which to act?                                          Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American Tobacco Investments
                                                                        Ltd, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.
                                                                        Is Council Directive 98/43 (1) invalid, in whole or in part, by
                                                                        reason of:
                                                                        (a) the inadequacy of Articles 57(2), 66 and 100A as a legal
                                                                             basis;
                                                                        (b) infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of
                                                                             expression;
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Münster, by order of that court of 26 January 1999, in
the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesversicherungsanstalt                  (c) infringement of the principle of proportionality;
                           Westfalen
                                                                        (d) infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;
                        (Case C-73/99)
                       (1999/C 136/16)                                  (e) infringement of the duty to give reasons;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (f) infringement of Article 222 EC and/or the fundamental
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Münster                   right to property?
(Social Court, Münster) of 26 January 1999, which was
received at the Court Registry on 2 March 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesver-
sicherungsanstalt Westfalen on the following question:
                                                                        (1) Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
Is European Community law infringed where the defendant                     administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
refuses to grant a subsidy in respect of the cost of Netherlands            advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ L 213,
sickness insurance to the plaintiff, who receives a normal                  30.7.1998, p. 9).
old-age pension from the defendant?


title: Case T-50/01: Action brought on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Investments N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
14.7.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 200/57
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Investments                     The Court of First Instance dismissed the applications while
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                      slightly reducing the fines (2). As a result of that judgment,
                                 ties                                     CMBT Investments N.V. (later known as Saffron Investments
                                                                          N.V), to which CMB Transport N.V.’s obligation to pay the fine
                                                                          had been transferred, and Dafra Lines A/S paid a total amount
                           (Case T-50/01)                                 of EUR 12 033 177,49, covering the amount of the fine plus
                                                                          interest as from the date of the judgment.
                         (2001/C 200/107)
                                                                          The Court of Justice later annulled Articles 6 and 7 of the
                                                                          Cewal Decision in so far as they imposed a fine on CMB N.V.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        and on Dafra Lines A/S (3). As a result of that judgment, the
                                                                          Commission reimbursed the applicant the amount of EUR
                                                                          12 033 177,49 which had originally been paid. However, the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Commission did not pay any interest or reimburse the costs of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the bank guarantee that had initially been obtained in order to
European Communities on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Invest-                   cover the amount of the fines and its interests.
ments N.V., represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Isabelle
Buelens, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels                  By letter of 29 December 2000, the Commission replied to
(Belgium).                                                                the applicant’s request for payment of interest and the costs
                                                                          relating to the bank guarantees, stating that it had no obligation
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               to pay such interest or to refund the costs for the bank
                                                                          guarantees.
—     annul the decision of 29 December 2000 of the Com-
      mission, refusing to pay interest (and in particular interest       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s
      at a rate of 11,25 % pending an appeal and at a rate of             decision and submits that the Commission has infringed Article
      13,25 % thereafter) on an amount of 12 033 177,49                   233 EC (ex Article 176), the principle of proportionality, the
      EUR, representing the fines and accrued late payment                principle of unjust enrichment and the fundamental principle
      interest paid to the Commission and refusing to reimburse           of non-discrimination. Alternatively, it seeks compensation
      the expenses incurred in providing a bank guarantee in              under Articles 235 and 288 EC for damage incurred as a result
      order to cover the amount of the fines and interest until           of the enforcement of the Cewal Decision, as subsequently
      payment on 16 December 1996;                                        annulled in regard to CMB N.V. and Dafra Lines A/S.
—     in the alternative, order the Commission, on the basis of
      Articles 235 and 288 EC, to pay an amount of EUR                    (1) Decision of 23.12.1992, Cewal, OJ L 34 of 10.2.1993, p. 20.
      5 028 037,17 as compensation for damage incurred;                   (2) Judgment of 8.10.1996, in Joined Cases T-24/93-T26/96 and
                                                                              T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v
                                                                              Commission [1996] ECR II-1201.
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay default interest          (3) Judgment of 16.3.2000 in Joined Cases C-395/96 P and 396/93 P
      on that amount from the date of the judgment of the                     Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v Commission
      Court, at a rate applied by the European Monetary                       [not yet available in all languages].
      Cooperation Fund on its operation in EURO as deter-
      mined on the day on which the judgment is adopted plus
      one and a half points;
—     order the Commission to bear the costs of the present
      proceedings.
                                                                          Action brought on 30 March 2001 by INNOVA —
                                                                          Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
In its Cewal Decision (1), the Commission imposed a fine of                                           (Case T-78/01)
ECU 9 600 000 on CMB N.V. and a fine of ECU 200 000 on
Dafra Lines A/S.                                                                                (2001/C 200/108)
An action was brought against the decision by CMB N.V. and
its separate legal entity for liner business, CMB Transport N.V.,                             (Language of the case: French)
on the one hand, and Dafra Lines A/S, on the other hand. Bank
guarantees were provided for the amount of the fine and                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
interests by both parties.                                                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 30 March


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element ‘Julián Murúa Entrena’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Spanish and international work mark MURÚA — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Surname)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 July 2005
   in Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element ‘Julián Murúa Entrena’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Spanish and international work mark MURÚA - Refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Surname)
   (2005/C 229/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena, residing in Elciego (Spain), represented by I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Bodegas Murúa SA — action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2002 (Case R 599/1999-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Murúa SA and Julián Murúa Entrena — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2004 in Case C-445/02 P: Glaverbel SA v OHIM (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark — Design applied to the surface of goods — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 28 June 2004
   in Case C-445/02 P: Glaverbel SA v OHIM (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Design applied to the surface of goods - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character)
   (2004/C 228/33)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-445/02 P: Glaverbel SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), (Lawyer: S. Möbus) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2002 in Case T-36/01 Glaverbel v OHIM (glass-sheet surface) [2002] ECR II-3887, seeking to have that judgment set aside in so far as the Court of First Instance held that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not infringe Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) by adopting its decision of 30 November 2000 refusing to register a design applied to the surface of glass products as a Community trade mark (Case R 137/2000-1), the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and R. Thewlis), defendant at first instance — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and J. Makarczyk, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Glaverbel SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case C-232/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia)) — Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Articles 2(a) and 10 — Concept of pregnant worker — Prohibition on the dismissal of a pregnant worker during the period from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Member of the Board of Directors of a capital company — National legislation permitting the dismissal of a Board Member without any restrictions)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia)) — Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA
   (Case C-232/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Articles 2(a) and 10 - Concept of ‘pregnant worker’ - Prohibition on the dismissal of a pregnant worker during the period from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women - Member of the Board of Directors of a capital company - National legislation permitting the dismissal of a Board Member without any restrictions)
   2011/C 13/17
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dita Danosa

      Defendant: LKB Līzings SIA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augustākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Definition of worker — Compatibility of the directive of national legislation authorising the dismissal of a member of the board of directors of a capital company without any restriction taking account in particular of that member's pregnancy

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A member of a capital company’s Board of Directors who provides services to that company and is an integral part of it must be regarded as having the status of worker for the purposes of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), if that activity is carried out, for some time, under the direction or supervision of another body of that company and if, in return for those activities, the Board Member receives remuneration. It is for the national court to undertake the assessments of fact necessary to determine whether that is so in the case pending before it.

               2.

               Article 10 of Directive 92/85 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits a member of a capital company’s Board of Directors to be removed from that post without restriction, where the person concerned is a ‘pregnant worker’ within the meaning of that directive and the decision to remove her was taken essentially on account of her pregnancy. Even if the Board Member concerned is not a ‘pregnant worker’ within the meaning of Directive 92/85, the fact remains that the removal, on account of pregnancy or essentially on account of pregnancy, of a member of a Board of Directors who performs duties such as those described in the main proceedings can affect only women and therefore constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 2(1) and (7) and Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-193/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-193/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)
   2013/C 344/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 09.07.2011.


title: Case C-77/15 P: Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Luigi Marcuccio

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/10

         Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Luigi Marcuccio
   (Case C-77/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 078/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The Vice-President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-353/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 22 July 2004 in the case of Nowaco Germany GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 22 July 2004 in the case of Nowaco Germany GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-353/04)
   (2004/C 262/33)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 22 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nowaco Germany GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

               1.

               For the purposes of establishing whether a product in respect of which recovery of export duty is sought is of marketable quality, may reliance be placed on Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 (1) introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry?

               2.

               In the event that the reply to Question 1 is yes,

                           (a)

                           Does Article 70 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code apply where it is necessary to establish whether a product in respect of which recovery of export duty is sought is of marketable quality?

                           (b)

                           Does the deeming provision as to condition in Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 also apply if only one random sample of the product has been inspected but the pertinent Community provisions permit defects in the goods up to a certain quantitative limit and accordingly require and expressly prescribe inspection of a specific minimum number of samples to establish whether that limit has been observed?

               3.

               In the event that the replies to Questions 2(a) and (b) are also yes:
               What is the effect of the aforementioned deeming provision where several samples are taken from an export consignment that was declared as a single unit and upon examination of a part of those samples some were found to be of marketable quality but others were not?

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ L 302, p. 1.


title: Case T-45/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission (Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Countervailing duties — Expiry of duties — Notice of initiation of a review — Time-limits — WTO Rules)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission
   (Case T-45/06) (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Countervailing duties - Expiry of duties - Notice of initiation of a review - Time-limits - WTO Rules)
   (2008/C 285/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Reliance Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: I. MacVay and S. Ahmed, Solicitors, R. Thompson, QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and P. Stancanelli, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of:

               —

               Commission Notice of 1 December 2005 of initiation of an expiry review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in inter alia India (OJ 2005 C 304, p. 4),

               —

               Commission Notice of 1 December 2005 of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand and a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2005 C 304, p. 9),

               —

               Council Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 1), Council Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 21), and Commission Decision 2000/745/EC of 29 November 2000 accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 88), in so far as those measures may purport to apply to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005,

               —

               in the alternative, Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) and Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1997 L 288, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Reliance Industries Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-29/10: Action brought on 28 January 2010 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/38

         Action brought on 28 January 2010 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-29/10)
   2010/C 80/63
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and Y. de Vries, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in part the Commission Decision of 18 November 2009 in Case No C 10/2009 (ex. N 138/2009) — Netherlands/aid for ING Groep N.V.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the contested Decision, the Commission found that certain measures taken by the Netherlands State in regard to ING Groep N.V. constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, and it declared that aid to be compatible with the common market, subject to certain commitments. According to the Decision, the modification of the repayment terms in respect of EUR 5 billion of the capital injection represents additional aid.
   The application is directed against the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Decision, which is based on, inter alia, the Commission’s finding that the modification of the repayment terms in respect of EUR 5 billion of the capital injection involves State aid.
   First, the applicant submits that the Decision is contrary to Article 107 TFEU in so far as the Commission found in the Decision that the modification of the repayment terms concerning the holding in the core capital of ING constituted EUR 2 billion of additional State aid in favour of ING. In the applicant’s view, the Commission erred, for the following reasons, in classifying the modification of the repayment terms as State aid:

               —

               In so far as there is any question of State aid, this consists, according to the Decision, in the full shareholding in the core capital of ING; a modification of the terms under which that aid can be repaid cannot, in addition to that shareholding, constitute State aid.

               —

               The modification of the repayment terms ought to have been included by the Commission in its appraisal of the shareholding in the core capital, and should not have been appraised separately.

               —

               In the event that the Commission was in fact entitled to appraise the modification of the repayment terms itself in the light of the rules on State aid, it committed a number of errors in that regard.

               —

               In its appraisal, the Commission wrongly failed to take account of the fact that one of the purposes of the modification of the repayment terms was to bring those terms further into line with market-compliant repayment terms.

         Second, the applicant submits that the Decision is at variance with the principle of the duty of care in that the Commission failed to collect the necessary information concerning the relevant facts.
   Third, the applicant takes the view that the Decision infringes the principle that reasons must be given, inasmuch as the Commission failed to adduce conclusive reasons for its view that the modification of the repayment terms constituted additional aid.


title: Case C-417/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt

text:
C 45/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna                      2.    Do the so-called ‘simple’ cases of difference in the second
Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the                          sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the
         Commission of the European Communities                               regulation presuppose the making of a ‘false declaration’
                                                                              in the application itself, or is it simply a question of
                        (Case C-1/00 SA)                                      comparing the information given in the application with
                                                                              the result of the on-the-spot inspection?
                          (2001/C 45/11)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December
2000 by Cotecna Inspection S.A., represented by Jacques
H.J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, of Messrs Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Fedd, with an address for service in Luxem-            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10                KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                      Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and
                                                                                MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-433/00)
—     grant the applicant leave to attach assets held by the                                       (2001/C 45/13)
      Commission amounting to USD 2 265 550,63 together
      with interest at the legal rate in force in Djibouti from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      28 January 2000, being the date of the arbitration award,         European Communities by order of 10 November 2000 by
      and USD 66 000,                                                   the Landgericht KöIn (Regional Court, Cologne) which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 23 November 2000, for a
with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award made             preliminary ruling in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland
against the State of Djibouti which has become enforceable              GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs
pursuant to an order made the Tribunal de Première Instance,            GmbH on the following questions:
Brussels.
                                                                        1.    Do the provisions governing the central authorisation of
                                                                              medicinal products in the European Union — in particu-
                                                                              lar those of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (1) — preclude
                                                                              the legal possibility of ‘bundling’ (that is to say, the joining
                                                                              together of several packages, each bearing the necessary
                                                                              labelling, in order to form a new retail unit) of packages
                                                                              of medicinal products following importation into one
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                         Member State from another Member State, in such a way
tungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that                       that ‘repackaging’ of medicinal products (that is to say,
court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossen-                       the production of new external packaging to which
schaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und                       the importer affixes the foreign trademark without the
                    Flurneuordnung Anhalt                                     authorisation of the trademark holder) is ‘necessary’
                                                                              within the meaning of the decision of the European Court
                         (Case C-417/00)                                      of Justice in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v Rhône-
                                                                              Poulenc Pharma (2) and the trademark holder for that
                                                                              reason cannot prohibit such repackaging?
                          (2001/C 45/12)
                                                                        2.    In the event that Question 1 should be answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        negative:
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-
richt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Higher Administrative Court                  Do the rules on the free movement of goods within the
for the Land Sachsen-Anhalt) of 7 September 2000, received                    Common Market or other rules of Community law stand
at the Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary                  in the way of a prohibition which, in cases of the kind
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. v                     referred to in Question 1, is directed against ‘repackaging’
Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt on the                       on the ground, derived from national trademark law, that
following questions:                                                          the possibility of creating a bundle package, which,
                                                                              moreover, exists de facto and de jure, constitutes a less
                                                                              intrusive interference with the rights of the trademark
1.    On a proper interpretation of the third subparagraph of
                                                                              holder?
      Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, (1) does
      ‘false declaration’ refer to a culpable positive act in the
      context of an application for aid, so that failure to report      (1) OJ 1993 L 214 of 24.8.1993, p. 1.
      to the granting authority changes which are relevant to           (2) [1996] ECR I-3671.
      the application but do not occur until afterwards is not
      penalised?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 1999 in Case C-362/98: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 93/103/EC)

text:
C 366/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 21 September 1999                                                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 September 1999
in Case C-378/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam): criminal
       proceedings against Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek (1)                      in Case C-362/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons — Right of citizens of
the European Union to move and reside freely — Border                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
controls — National legislation requiring persons coming                                   to transpose Directive 93/103/EC)
      from another Member State to present a passport)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/16)
                          (1999/C 366/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-362/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: Pieter Jan Kuijper and Antonio Aresu) v Italian
In Case C-378/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                Gaizo) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
rechtbank te Rotterdam, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling               and/or by not communicating to the Commission the laws,
in the criminal proceedings before that court against Florus                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
Ariël Wijsenbeek — on the interpretation of Articles 7a and                 with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993
8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 14 EC                   concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
and 18 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                        work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann,          within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
Presidents of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-                (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
mann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                   its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (First
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate                   Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for                  the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 1999, in                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
which it has ruled:                                                         on 21 September 1999, in which it:
                                                                            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
As Community law stood at the time of the events in question in the             laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
main proceedings, neither Article 7a nor Article 8a of the EC Treaty            comply with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November
(now, after amendment, Articles 14 EC and 18 EC) precluded a                    1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
Member State from requiring a person, whether or not a citizen of               for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive
the European Union, under threat of criminal penalties, to establish            within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
his nationality upon his entry into the territory of that Member State          the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
by an internal frontier of the Community, provided that the penalties           Article 13(1) thereof;
applicable are comparable to those which apply to similar national
infringements and are not disproportionate, thus creating an obstacle
to the free movement of persons.                                            2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 387 of 20.12.1997.                                              (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case T-251/08: Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/52

         Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)
   (Case T-251/08)
   (2008/C 223/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Vion NV (Best, Netherlands) (represented by A. Klinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007-4);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 (Application for registration No 5 039 946).

      Decision of the Examiner: Application dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) as the trade mark applied for is sufficiently distinctive.

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


title: Case C-541/14 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2014 by Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S against the judgment delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/16

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2014 by Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S against the judgment delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission
   (Case C-541/14 P)
   (2015/C 034/18)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S (represented by: B. Jacobi and P. Vesterdorf, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Malta, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the General Court’s judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus concerning the measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10) relating to Denmark’s implementation of duties on online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act, under which the appellant has no interest in bringing proceedings.

               2.

               Order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the appellant, and order the intervener to bear its own costs for the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The appellant submits that the General Court was incorrect in holding that the appellant has no interest in bringing proceedings, since the appellant fulfils the criteria in Article 263 Treaty on Functioning of the European Union to bring proceedings against the EU Commission.

               2.

               The appellant further submits that, in its judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus, the General Court erred in law in a manner detrimental to the appellant’s interests by:

                           a)

                           stating in paragraph 43, with reference to a lack of evidence, that the appellant had not demonstrated which effect the State aid would have on the appellant’s financial situation;

                           b)

                           concluding in paragraph 44 that the appellant accordingly had not demonstrated the State aid could cause significant harm to the appellant’s position on the relevant market and therefore could not be regarded as being individually concerned;

                           c)

                           finding in paragraph 42 that the appellant was not individually concerned by the contested decision, even though the appellant’s casino is part of a closed circle of land-based casinos;

                           d)

                           stating in paragraph 52 that the appellant’s action did not fulfil the conditions for admissibility set out in the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; and

                           e)

                           stating in paragraph 53 that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings.

               3.

               The appellant submits that the casino is individually concerned, since:

                           —

                           the appellant had made a complaint to the Commission concerning the State aid in question in the form of markedly lower taxes for online gaming, had participated actively in both the preliminary and formal investigation procedures, and the casino was significantly affected by the State aid measure;

                           —

                           the appellant’s business consists of the small number of land-based casinos which are affected by the aid measure, and which legally and factually are distinct from all other businesses in Denmark; and

                           —

                           the contested decision from the Commission, which approves the Danish State’s aid measure in the form of lower taxes for online gaming, is not a regulatory act covering implementation measures, in any event not in relation to the appellant.


title: Case C-427/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance examination of declarations — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination — Powers — Decision on the first post-clearance examination — Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA
   (Case C-427/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance examination of declarations - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination - Powers - Decision on the first post-clearance examination - Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision))
   (2016/C 048/04)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant:‘Veloserviss’ SIA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which a restriction is placed on the customs authorities’ powers to conduct re-examinations or post-clearance examinations and to regularise the situation by fixing a new customs debt, provided that that restriction refers to a three-year period from the time the initial customs debt was incurred, which it is for the national court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-63/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Iran Insurance v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of illegality — Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 — Article 215 TFEU — Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Decision 2012/35/CFSP — Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 — Fundamental rights — Articles 2 TEU, 21 TEU and 23 TEU — Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Iran Insurance v Council
   (Case T-63/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of illegality - Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 - Article 215 TFEU - Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Decision 2012/35/CFSP - Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 - Fundamental rights - Articles 2 TEU, 21 TEU and 23 TEU - Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 222/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Insurance Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Rodios and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application firstly for annulment, under Article 263 TFEU and Article 275 TFEU, of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant, and secondly for a declaration, under Article 277 TFEU, of the inapplicability as regards the applicant of Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22) and of Article 23(2)(d) and Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Iran Insurance Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case T-173/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)
   (Case T-173/08) (1)

   (2009/C 6/87)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-561/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Spain) — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza (Community trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(1) — Concept of ‘third party’ — Proprietor of a later Community trade mark)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Spain) — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza
   (Case C-561/11) (1)

   (Community trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘third party’ - Proprietor of a later Community trade mark)
   2013/C 114/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fédération Cynologique Internationale

      Defendant: Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Infringement or threat of infringement of a Community trade mark — Exclusive right conferred by a Community trade mark — Meaning of third party

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prohibit all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later registered Community trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-486/09: Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-486/09) (1)

   2011/C 89/24
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case F-63/14: Action brought on 11 July 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/61

         Action brought on 11 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-63/14)
   2014/C 421/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare unlawful and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decisions to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicants before taking up their duties, in the context of the transfer of those rights in the EU institutions’ pension scheme, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-198/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-157/94 Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 299/6                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
         — inconsistency,                                               — Infringement of Community law in so far as the judgment
                                                                             of the Court of First Instance results in a series of
         — infringement of the principle of equality and                     inconsistencies in regard to its analysis and assessment of
             proportionality in expressing the fines in Ecus,                a number of arguments.
                                                                             (a) First, in relation to the argument concerning joint
         — failure to order the Commission to pay to the                         liability, inasmuch as the respondent imposed a fine
             applicant at first instance the full expenses and                   only on Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, attributing to it
             interest resulting from the lodging of a surety or                  the conduct of its sister company;
             from payment of the fine in full or in part; the
             Court should rule that the interest on the fine does            (b) Second, in relation to the aggravating circumstance
             not begin to accrue until the judgment of the Court                 resulting from awareness that the conduct criticised
             of First Instance becomes enforceable, and should                   was unlawful; and, finally
             accordingly order the Commission to pay the
                                                                             (c) In relation to the date indicated in the operative part
             expenses and interest accrued on the surety or
                                                                                of the Commission decision from which the alleged
             payment of the fine,
                                                                                infringements attributed to Siderúrgica Aristrain Mad-
                                                                                rid began to run.
         — idem in relation to the eighth and ninth pleas in
             the present appeal.                                        — Infringement of Community law through misapplication
                                                                             and misinterpretation of the principle of equality and
    3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, in so             proportionality in so far as the judgment of the Court of
         far as is not ready for judgment, in order that the latter          First Instance failed correctly to take account of the
         may rule on:                                                        depreciations incurred by the Spanish peseta, which result-
                                                                             ed in an increase in the fine payable by Siderúrgica
                                                                             Aristrain Madrid compared with those payable by other
         — the plea relating to misuse of power.                             undertakings whose currencies had not suffered devalu-
                                                                             ation or had been revalued.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs and also rule that
    the respondent must pay the costs in the proceedings at             — Infringement of Community law and of fundamental rights
    first instance, in the event that the Court of Justice upholds           on the ground of inconsistency in the reasoning of the
    in whole or in part the pleas in law set out in the present              judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it failed
    appeal.                                                                  to order the Commission to pay the expenses and interest
                                                                             resulting from the lodging of a surety or payment of the
                                                                             fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Infringement of Community law by reason of a breach of
                                                                             Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                             Instance and breach of procedural guarantees in so far as
— Infringement of Community law through misapplication                       the deliberations of the Court were concluded by only
    and misinterpretation of Article 65 of the Treaty estab-                 three of the five judges who constituted the Chamber at
    lishing the European Coal and Steel Community (the ECSC                  the time of the hearing.
    Treaty) in the assessment of the infringements allegedly
    committed within the context of that Treaty and the                 — Infringement of Community law in so far as the appellant
    ECSC market, inasmuch as the grounds of the impugned                     was refused the right to a fair decision within a reasonable
    judgment are contradictory in relation to this point.                    period of time, contrary to Article 6 of the European
                                                                             Convention on Human Rights.
— Infringement of Community law inasmuch as the Court of
    First Instance erred in law in its judgment in its application      (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
    of the notion of misuse of power due to the fact that it            (1) OJ 1999 C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 16.
    failed properly to examine the appellant’s argument in that
    regard or the factors relied on.
— Infringement of Community law through misapplication
    and misinterpretation of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty,             Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional
    inasmuch as the statement of reasons in the decision                Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) against the judgment delivered
    relating to the fine is defective.                                  on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended
— Infringement of Community law in so far as the judgment               Composition) in Case T-157/94 Empresa Nacional Sid-
    of the Court of First Instance is not sufficiently reasoned in      erúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European
    regard to:                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-198/99 P) (*)
    (a) a fundamental point in the applicants’ argument
         concerning the absence of a quorum for the adoption                                      (1999/C 299/07)
         of the contested decision;
                                                                        An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
    (b) its refusal to compare the level of the fines imposed on        European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional
         other cartels under the EEC Treaty, without offering           Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa), represented by Santiago Martı́nez
         any valid grounds for that refusal.                            Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamente Köster, of the Madrid Bar,
 ---pagebreak--- 16.10.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 299/7
with an address for service at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                    existing allows undertakings consciously to adapt to the
Box 144, 31 Grand Rue, L-2011 Luxembourg, against the                         conduct of their competitors. The Court of First Instance
judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First                     erred in law in basing its line of argument on ‘normal
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,                         competition’ under Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, without
Extended Composition) in Case T-157/94 Empresa Nacional                       in any way explaining the scope and meaning of that
Siderúrgica S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.                   expression in the ECSC Treaty. The Court of First Instance
                                                                              erred in law in accepting that the Commission was not
                                                                              obliged to demonstrate the negative effect which the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   conduct criticised might have on competition, notwith-
                                                                              standing the fact that the Commission had itself taken the
— Primarily: annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance                view that such effect was not negligible. The Court of First
    in Case T-157/94 (1) in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR                Instance distorted the written evidence and the declarations
    3 350 000, dismisses the remainder of the action and                      of witnesses in forming the view that the officials of DG III
    orders the company to bear its own costs and to pay three                 could not have known that, among the copious infor-
    quarters of the Commission’s costs;                                       mation which Eurofer provided to them concerning the
                                                                              general situation on the market, the information on prices
                                                                              was the result of an agreement which the undertakings had
— In the alternative: annul in part the judgment of the Court
                                                                              reached. At the end of the crisis period, the Commission
    of First Instance on the grounds set out in the statement of
                                                                              failed to provide practical guidelines or clear directions
    appeal, and reduce the fine imposed on Ensidesa;
                                                                              which could dispel the doubts which undertakings had as
                                                                              to the application of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. The
— In either case: order the Commission to pay the costs of                    Commission was aware of and even encouraged the
    the proceedings at first instance and those of the present                exchange of information carried out by the undertakings,
    appeal.                                                                   particularly concerning orders, deliveries, the real level of
                                                                              prices and estimated level of future prices within the
                                                                              framework of numerous meetings held between the under-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               takings and DG III.
                                                                         — Infringement of Community law inasmuch as the Court
Infringement of Community law by reason of the erroneous
                                                                              failed to annul Article 1 of the decision on the ground that
legal assessment of the infringements of essential procedural
                                                                              it did not indicate the duration of the infringement relating
requirements committed when the Commission decision was
                                                                              to price-fixing.
adopted.
— Absence of a quorum when the decision was adopted: the                 — Infringement of Community law by reason of the
    Court of First Instance failed to take the measures necessary             erroneous legal assessment of the agreement to share the
    to determine whether the Commission had complied with                     French market.
    the principles governing essential procedural requirements.
    On the basis of the scant material available, the Court of
    First Instance reached a manifestly erroneous interpretation         — Infringement of Community law by reason of the improper
    of the content of the minutes recording the adoption of                   exercise by the Court of First Instance of its judicial review
    the decision in forming the view that this had been adopted               function and infringement of Ensidesa’s rights of defence:
    with a sufficient quorum, whereas the minutes referred to                 the judgment under appeal misconstrues the Commission
    make clear that the contrary was the case.                                decision, attributing to it a conclusion which it does not
                                                                              contain. The Court of First Instance ought to have annulled
                                                                              the fine wrongly imposed on Ensidesa in the decision for a
— Absence of formal correspondence between the decision                       separate infringement which, as the Commission acknowl-
    adopted and that notified.                                                edged, did not take place.
— Lack of authentication: the procedure followed by the
    Commission and accepted as adequate by the Court of                  — Infringement of Community law in upholding the legality
    First Instance — submission of the minutes of the meeting                 of the conversion of turnover into ecus, this being an
    without their annexes being attached — fails to guarantee                 infringement of the principle of equity.
    that the Commission adopted the text of the decision in the
    version sent to Ensidesa, thereby infringing the meaning             — Infringement of Community law in upholding the legality
    attributable to Article 16 of the Commission’s Rules of                   of taking into consideration the turnover achieved during
    Procedure in the version prior to their amendment in                      the last year of the infringement.
    1995.
— Infringement of Community law by reason of the
    erroneous legal assessment of the conduct attributed to              (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
    Ensidesa in the light of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty:           (1) OJ 1999 C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 17.
    the Court of First Instance interpreted Article 65 of the
    ECSC Treaty as if it were Article 81 EC (ex Article 85 of
    the EC Treaty), thereby committing a manifest error.
    The ECSC Treaty establishes regulated competition in an
    oligopolistic market, in which the limited competition


title: Case T-373/06: Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican Forte)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/25

         Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican Forte)
   (Case T-373/06)
   (2007/C 42/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dr. Grandel GmbH
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 October 2006 in so far as it refuses to allow the Community trade mark application in respect of the goods in Class 5 ‘food supplements not for medical purposes, mainly consisting of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and trace elements; dietetic substances not adapted for medical use, namely amino acids and trace elements; the aforesaid goods not for use as antiepileptics’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Epican Forte’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (Application No 2 525 251)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dr. Grandel GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EPIGRAN’ originally registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 and now registered only for goods in Class 3 (Community trade mark No 560 292), albeit that the opposition was brought solely against the registration in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.

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