title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-230/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Renate Enkler v. Finanzamt Homburg (Sixth VAT Directive - Definition of economic activity - Taxable amount)

text:
No C 354/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            23 . 11 . 96
 ( EEC ) No 1384/77 of 27 June 1977 ( OJ No L 157, 1977,              relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added
 p. 16 ), and on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )        tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 )
 No 1121 /87 of 23 April 1987 amending Regulations ( EEC )            and of Article 3 ( b ) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
 No 612/77 and ( EEC ) No 1 1 36/79 as regards the release of         eighth Council Directive 79/ 1072/EEC of 6 December 1979
 the security for certain special import arrangements in the          on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
 beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 109 , 1987, p. 12 ) — the Court       relating to turnover taxes — arrangements for the refund of
 ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris                       value added tax to taxable persons not established in the
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and              territory of the country ( OJ No L 331 , 1979 , p. 11 ), the
 G. F. Mancini, Judges ; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. von           Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ,
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a           President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and
 judgment on 17 September 1996 , in which it rules :                  P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ;
                                                                      H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
 1 . Article 2 (d) of Council Directive 79/623/EEC of                 given a judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it
                                                                      rules :
      25 June 1979 on the harmonization of provisions laid
      down by law, regulation or administrative action
      relating to customs debt has direct effect and confers on       Article 3 (b) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC,
      individuals rights which they may assert against a              of 6 December 1979, on the harmonization of the laws of
      Member State which has failed to transpose the directive        the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      into national law, and which the national courts must           arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
      safeguard.                                                      persons not established in the territory of the country, is to
                                                                      be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a lawyer
2 . Article 2 (d) of Directive 79/623/EEC is also applicable          benefits, pursuant to Article 28 (3) (b) of the sixth Council
      where Commission Regulation (EEC) No 612/77 of                  Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977, on the
      24 March 1 977 laying down rules for the application of         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      the special import arrangements in respect of certain           turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
      young male bovine animals for fattening, as amended by          uniform basis of assessment, and Annex F thereto, from an
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1384/77 of 27 June               exemption in the Member State in which he is established
      1977, is infringed.                                             does not entitle him to request the competent authorities of
                                                                      that Member State to issue the certificate mentioned therein
                                                                      and he is not, accordingly, entitled to a refund of the VAT
C ) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
     OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                      charged on services supplied to him in a Member State in
                                                                      which he is not established and in which services supplied by
                                                                      lawyers are not exempted.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-302/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    ( Fourth Chamber )
the Gerechtshof, The Hague ): Etienne Debouche v.                                          of 26 September 1996
         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (')
                                                                     in Case C-230/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 1 7 (2) and (3)          the      Bundesfinanzhof):      Renate      Enkler     v.     Finanzamt
(a) ofDirective 77/388/EEC and ofArticle 3 (b) and the first                                      Homburg ( 1 )
paragraph ofArticle 5 ofDirective 79/1 072/EEC — Refund
of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the          (Sixth VAT Directive — Definition of economic activity —
                                                                                Taxable amount)
                    territory of the country)
                                                                                96/C 354/ 11 )
                          ( 96/C 354/ 10 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-230/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-302/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177          of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance
of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof [ Regional Court of           Court, Germany] for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Appeal], The Hague ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling          pending before that court between Renate Enkler and
in the proceedings pending before that court between                 Finanzamt ( Tax Office ) Homburg on the interpretation of
Etienne Debouche and Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en                 Articles 4(1 ) and ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 11 A ( 1 ) ( c ) of the sixth
Accijnzen on the interpretation of Articles 17 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ( a ) Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 354/7
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ), the          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris,                 Jean-Paul Keppenne and Ben Smulders ) — application for
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                         annulment of Commission decision SG(94 ) D/8907 of
H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas,                        27 June 1994 concerning aid to the company Kimberly
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for            Clark Sopalin — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 1996               Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
in which it ruled :                                                    Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), ( Presidents of
                                                                       Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
I. The hiring out of tangible property constitutes                     J. L. Murray, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G.
     exploitation ofsuch property which must be classified as          Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
     an 'economic activity ' within the meaning of Article 4           Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
     (2) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                26 September 1996 , in which it:
     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                 1 . dismisses the application;
     system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment,
     if it is done for the purpose of obtaining income
     therefrom on a continuing basis.                                  2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2 . In order to determine whether the hiring out of tangible           (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
     property such as a motor caravan is carried on with a
     view to obtaining income on a continuing basis, within
     the meaning of the second sentence ofArticle 4 (2) of the
     sixth Directive, it is for the national court to evaluate all
     the circumstances of the particular case.
3 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (c) of the sixth Directive is to be
     interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount for                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     turnover tax on transactions treated as supplies of                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
     services under Article 6 (2) (a) of the Directive must
     include expenses which are incurred during a period in                                 of 26 September 1996
     which the goods are at the taxable person 's disposal in a        in Case C-287/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     way that he can actually use them at any time for                 the 0stre Landsret ): A/S Richard Frederiksen & Co . v.
     non-business purposes and which relate to the goods                                      Skatteministeriet ( 1 )
     themselves or which the taxable person is entitled to             (Raising of capital — Capital duty — interest-free loan
     deduct for VAT purposes. The portion of the expenses              granted by a parent company to its subsidiary — Company
     to be included must be proportionate to the ratio                                              income tax)
     between the total duration ofactual use of the goods and
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/ 13 )
     the duration of actual use for non-business purposes.
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                                       (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   In Case C-287/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern Regional
                    of 26 September 1996
                                                                       Court ) ( Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the
in Case C-241/94 : French Republic v. Commission of the                proceedings pending before that court between A/S Richard
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Frederiksen       &   Co .     and   Skatteministeriet   on   the
(Concept ofState aid within the meaning ofArticle 92 (1) of            interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) ( b ) and Article 10 of Council
   the Treaty — State intervention of a social character)              Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
                           ( 96/C 354/ 12 )                            taxes on the raising of capital ( Official Journal, English
                                                                       Special Edition, 1969 ( II ), p. 412 ), the Court ( Sixth
                                                                       Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President of the
                (Language of the case: French)                         Chamber, G. F. Mancini and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                       Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl ,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
          published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it rules :
In Case C-241 /94 : French Republic ( Agents : Edwige                   1 . Article 4 (2) (b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) v.                   1 7 July 1 969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of


title: Case T-315/14: Action brought on 5 May 2014  — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/37

         Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik)
   (Case T-315/14)
   2014/C 212/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hipp & Co. (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 February 2014 in Cases R 1171/2012-4 and R 1326/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: the word mark ‘Praebiotik’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 83  919

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for cancellation was granted in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was partially annulled to the effect that the disputed mark was declared to be revoked in its entirety. The appeal of Hipp & Co. was dismissed.

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 78 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-131/15 P: Appeal brought on 16 March 2015 by Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 January 2015 in Case T-58/13: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE v European Commission

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/19

         Appeal brought on 16 March 2015 by Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 January 2015 in Case T-58/13: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE v European Commission
   (Case C-131/15 P)
   (2015/C 198/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hellenic Republic and Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in whole the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 January 2015 in Case T-58/13, Club Hotel Loutraki and Others v Commission;

               —

               Annul ‘Commission Decision C(2012) 6777 final of 3 October 2012 on State aid SA.33988 (2011/N) — Greece — Arrangements for the extension of OPAP’s exclusive right to operate 13 games of chance and the granting of an exclusive license to operate 35  000 Video Lottery Terminals for a period of ten years’;

               —

               To order the respondents to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The appeal is directed against the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 January 2015 in Case T-58/13, Club Hotel Loutraki and Others v Commission, rejecting the appellants’ pleas for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 6777 final of 3 October 2012 on ‘State aid SA.33988 (2011/N) — Greece — Arrangements for the extension of OPAP’s exclusive right to operate 13 games of chance and the granting of an exclusive license to operate 35  000 Video Lottery Terminals for a period of ten years’ .

               2.

               In that decision the Commission raised no objections with regard to two notified measures in favour of OPAP: (a) the grant to OPAP of an exclusive license to operate 35  000 Video Lottery Terminals for a period of 10 years, ending in 2022; (b) the 10-year prolongation, from 2020 to 2030, of the exclusive rights already granted to OPAP for the operation of 13 games of chance.

               3.

               In their appeal the appellants raise three pleas in law against the contested judgment:

                           (a)

                           Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Articles 4(4), 7(2) and (3) and 13(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1), because the General Court concluded in paras 33-64 of the contested judgment that the Commission was not obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure and, that it lawfully completed its investigation during the preliminary procedure.

                           (b)

                           Infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, because the General Court concluded in paras 65-78 of the challenged judgment that the Commission decision was sufficiently reasoned, despite a lack of economic data which did not permit the accuracy of the calculations made by the Commission to be determined.

                           (c)

                           Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, because the General Court concluded that the joint assessment of the notified measures by the Commission was lawful, despite the lack of a market definition, and in view of the erroneous application of the notions of ‘similarity’ and ‘economic context’.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty OJ L 83, p. 1.


title: Case T-129/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Carlos Andres and 150 other applicants against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-15/10, Andres and Others v ECB

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/27

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Carlos Andres and 150 other applicants against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-15/10, Andres and Others v ECB
   (Case T-129/14 P)
   2014/C 159/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Carlos Andres (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and 150 other appellants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 11 December 2013 in Case F-15/10;

               —

               Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellants at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           Annul the payslips for June 2009 in so far as those payslips constitute the initial implementation in regard to the applicants of the reform of the pension scheme decided by the Governing Council on 4 May 2009 and annul, to the same extent, all subsequent payslips and all future pension statements;

                           —

                           To the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the applications for administrative review and complaints brought under the grievance procedure dated 28 August and 17 December 2009 respectively;

                           —

                           Consequently,

                                       —

                                       Order the defendant to pay the difference between the salary and pension resulting from the decision of the Governing Council of 4 May 2009 and that paid in application of the preceding pension scheme, that difference to be increased by interest for late payment with effect from 15 June 2009 and then on the 15th of each month until the difference has been completely made up, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three points,

                                       —

                                       Order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, that loss to be assessed ex aequo et bono, and, on a provisional basis, at 1% of the monthly salary of each applicant;

                           —

                           Order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs;

               —

               Order the respondent to the appeal to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6.8 of Annex III to the Conditions of Employment, an infringement of the principles of legality and of legal certainty and infringement of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the powers of the Supervisory Committee, infringement of Annex III to the Conditions of Employment and of the mandate of the Supervisory Committee, and infringement of the principle of good faith.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of consultation of the Staff Committee and of the Supervisory Committee, infringement of the principle of good faith, infringement of Articles 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment, infringement of the Memorandum of Understanding on relations between the Executive Board and the Staff Committee of the ECB, infringement of Annex III to the Conditions of Employment and of the mandate of the Supervisory Committee, and distortion of the file.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6.3 of the pension plan, infringement of the review of the grounds of the decision of 4 May 2009, distortion of the file and infringement of the principle of sound financial management.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment and distortion of the file.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, failure to state reasons, distortion of the file and infringement of the evidence.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging failure to acknowledge the difference between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship covered by the Staff Regulations, infringement of the fundamental terms of the employment relationship and infringement of Directive 91/533. (1)

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform the employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship directive (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).


title: Case T-264/17: Action brought on 4 May 2017 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/35

         Action brought on 4 May 2017 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)
   (Case T-264/17)
   (2017/C 221/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SMATRIX’ — Application for registration No 12 540 431

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 236/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               order SWEP International to compensate the Applicant for the costs before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-132/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — 1. Olivier Paul Louis Halley, 2. Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie Halley and 3. Marie Joëlle Armel Halley v Belgische Staat

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — 1. Olivier Paul Louis Halley, 2. Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie Halley and 3. Marie Joëlle Armel Halley v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-132/10)
   2010/C 134/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicants

               :

                           Olivier Paul Louis HALLEY

                           Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie HALLEY

                           Marie Joëlle Armel HALLEY

               Defendant

               :

               Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Is point 2 of the first paragraph of Article 137 of the Inheritance Tax Code (Wetboek Successierechten), in conjunction with Article 111 of the Inheritance Tax Code, compatible with Articles 26, 49, 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, given that the limitation period in respect of inheritance tax payable on registered shares is two years where the company’s centre of effective management is in Belgium, but 10 years where the company’s centre of effective management is not in Belgium?


title: Case T-276/11: Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Carlotti v Parliament

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/33

         Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Carlotti v Parliament
   (Case T-276/11)
   2011/C 232/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Arlette Carlotti (Marseilles, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the additional voluntary pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament to be unlawful;

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action seeks annulment of the decision of 28 March 2011 refusing the applicant entitlement to her additional pension at the age of 60 (with effect from February 2012), taken on the basis of the decision of the European Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the additional voluntary pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament.
   In support of her action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law alleging:

               —

               infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and of the principle of legal certainty;

               —

               infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality, in so far as the decision of 1 April 2009 and the contested decision raise the age at which the pension may be drawn by three years and do so without making any transitional provision;

               —

               infringement of Article 29 of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the quaestors and the Secretary-General are to be responsible for the interpretation and strict enforcement of those rules;

               —

               manifest error of assessment vitiating the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the rules serving as a basis to the contested decision in that it is based on an unfounded assessment of the financial situation of the pension fund;

               —

               breach of good faith in the performance of the contracts and nullity of the purely discretionary clauses.


title: Case T-127/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 — Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 — Fisheries — Fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 — Persons directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 — Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council
   (Case T-127/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 - Fisheries - Fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 - Persons directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 56/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lootus Teine Osaühing (Lootus) (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Sild and K. Martin, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. Westerhof Lörefflerova, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo and H. Prieß, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Banks, Agent)
   Re:
   Action for annulment in part of, first, the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 1) and, second, Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 4), in so far as those provisions concern the fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

               3.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-181/03 P: Albert Nardone, v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Former official — Application for invalidity pension — Conditions for granting)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-181/03 P: Albert Nardone, v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Former official - Application for invalidity pension - Conditions for granting)
   (2005/C 69/01)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-181/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged at the Court on 25 April 2003 by Albert Nardone, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Piétrain (Belgium), (lawyer: I. Kletzlen), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; L.M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nardone to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-214/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Sata v EUIPO (4600) (EU trade mark — Sign composed exclusively of numerals — Application for an EU word mark 4600 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Sata v EUIPO (4600)
   (Case T-214/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for an EU word mark 4600 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 1942/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign 4600 as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-364/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain), lodged on 1 August 2012 — Miguel Fradera Torredemer and Others v Corporación Uniland, S.A.

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain), lodged on 1 August 2012 — Miguel Fradera Torredemer and Others v Corporación Uniland, S.A.
   (Case C-364/12)
   2012/C 303/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Miguel Fradera Torredemer, Maria Teresa Torredemer Marcet, Enrique Fradera Ohlsen and Alicia Fradera Torredemer

      Respondent: Corporación Uniland, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 10) and Article 4(3) TEU compatible with rules such as those laid down in the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely: Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003, which provides that their remuneration is subject to a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % and when it is not really possible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from the minimum levels laid down in the statutory scale if exceptional circumstances arise?

               2.

               For the purpose of applying the tariff without applying the minimum levels laid down therein: may the fact that the amount of fees payable under the scale or tariff is disproportionate to the work actually done be regarded as exceptional circumstances?

               3.

               Is Article 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49) compatible with the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely: Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003?

               4.

               Do these rules meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality referred to in Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC? (1)

               5.

               Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrining the right to a fair trial, include the right to defend oneself properly in a situation in which the figure at which the fees of a procurador are set is disproportionately high and does not correspond to the work actually carried out?

               6.

               If so, are the provisions of the Spanish Law on civil procedure, which prevent the party ordered to pay costs from challenging the amount of the fees of the procurador on the grounds that they are considered to be excessively high and do not correspond to the work actually carried out, compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case F-93/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/23

         Action brought on 6 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-93/12)
   2012/C 343/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of the OIL of 1 December 2011 not to renew the applicant’s appointment, which therefore ended on 15 January 2012;

               —

               Annul in so far as necessary the decision confirming that decision stemming from the Director’s letter of 6 February 2012;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to him, as compensation for the damage to his career as from 15 January to 30 June 2012, a sum corresponding to the difference between the net remuneration which would have been payable to him at the OIL and the net unemployment benefit which he received, provisionally assessed at EUR 11 309, and to pay on his behalf to the Community pension scheme the contributions corresponding to the remuneration which he should have received;

               —

               Order the applicant’s appointment at the OIL to be renewed for an indefinite period, with effect from the date on which his present appointment comes to an end;

               —

               In the alternative, order the Commission to pay to him, as compensation for the damage to his career which he would otherwise suffer as from that date, the difference between the remuneration and the pension rights which he would have acquired if his appointment at the OIL had been renewed for an indefinite period and the remuneration or income which serves as a substitute for it and the pension which he might otherwise have received;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to him a sum of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage which resulted from the fact that his appointment at the OIL was not renewed;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to him a sum of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage caused him by the unlawful nature of his evaluation report for 2010;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-736/16: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/47

         Order of the General Court of 20 December 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-736/16) (1)

   (2017/C 053/58)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case C-561/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství
   (Case C-561/13)
   2014/C 45/32
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané

      Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 126 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) to be interpreted such that the separate sugar payment is a decoupled payment?

               2.

               Is Article 126(1) of Council Regulation No 73/2009 to be interpreted such that ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ include the representative period chosen by the Member State at that time on the basis of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (2) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006? (3)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 32).


title: Removal from the register of Case T-103/93

text:
No C 46/ 18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17 . 2 . 96
the notice of competition and are habitually contained in all          Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
notices of vacancy or competition — was intended to enable             from the register of Cases T-159/93 : Heinrich Kroger v.
a certain candidate, selected in advance by the appointing             Commission of the European Communities, T- 160/93 : Paul
authority, to take part in the competition and to be                   Hay v. Commission of the European Communities,
appointed; the applicant concludes from this that the                  T-162/93 : Hugo Bumann v. Commission of the European
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                  Communities, T-171 /93 : Hermann Weiland v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities, T-179/93 : Heidrun
He also observes that he was awarded < > ne mark less than the
                                                                       Bormann v. Commission of the European Communities,
candidate placed first on the list, by reason of the latter's          T-201 /93 : Jürn-Wulf Hoper v. Commission of the European
knowledge of a third language, although knowledge of third             Communities, T-202/93 : Fritz Voß v. Commission of the
and fourth languages was not included in the notice of                 European Communities, T-217/93 : Kurt Fröhlich jun . v.
competition amongst the conditions to be fulfilled by the              Commission of the European Communities and T-225/93 :
candidates . Consequently, by assessing the candidates                 Eberhard Kloth v. Commission of the European
according to their knowledge of third and fourth languages,            Communities .
the selection board infringed the terms of the notice of
competition.                                                           í 1 ) OJ No C 161 , 27 . 6 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
The applicant states, moreover, that he manifestly possesses
greater qualifications, experience and competence as
regards the post to be filled than the candidate who was
ultimately appointed . He considers , therefore, that, in giving
preference to the latter's application for the post in question,
the appointing authority committed a manifest error of                 Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of
assessment .
                                                                                Judges to Chambers
                                                                                96/C 46/36
 Lastly, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of
 non-discrimination, contending that one of the members of             At its plenary conference on 11 January 1996 the Court
 the selection board had formerly been his direct hierarchical         of First Instance adopted the following decisions in
 superior and that he had had problems with him in the past;           consequence of the departure from office of Judge
 he considers that, in those circumstances, that member of             Barrington, President of Chamber, and the taking-up of
 the selection board was not able to view him objectively and           office by Judge Cooke .
 impartially, and that that attitude could have influenced the
 judgment of the other members of the selection board.                 Judge Lenaerts is designated President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber and of the Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                        Composition, and Judge Cooke is assigned to the Third
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition, the Fourth Chamber and
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, for the period
       Removal from the register of Case T- 103/93 ( )                  from 11 January 1996 to 30 September 1996 .
                             ( 96/C 46/34 )
                                                                        Consequently, the composition of the Chambers decided on
                (Language of the case: German)                          19 September 1995 ( OJ No C 274 , 19 . 10 . 1995 , p. 11 ) is
                                                                        altered as follows .
 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
 Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
 Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        Mr Briët, President of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf, Ms Lindh,
 from the register of Case T-103/93 : Jan Dietrich Arfmann v.
  Commission of the European Communities .                              Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges .
                                                                        Fourth Chamber:
  (') OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 .
                                                                        Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh and
                                                                        Mr Cooke, Judges.
                                                                         Fourth Chamber, Extented Composition:
  Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-159/93 and                 Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                                others (M                                Ms Lindh, Mr Azizi and Mr Cooke, Judges.
                               96/C 46/35 )
                                                                         For cases in which the written procedure was completed and
                 (Language of the case: German)                          a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
                                                                         11 January 1996, the Third Chamber, Extended
  By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First                Composition, shall continue to sit with the same
  Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 composition as before .


               25.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/8

         Action brought on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-12/15)
   (2015/C 209/07)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 24 November 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 24 September 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-507/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/39

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-507/17)
   (2017/C 347/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín y B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should annul:

               —

               Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-185/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Continental Wind Partners v OHIM Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS — Earlier international figurative mark Continental — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Continental Wind Partners v OHIM Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)
   (Case T-185/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS - Earlier international figurative mark Continental - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))
   2014/C 380/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Continental Wind Partners LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2013 (Case R 2204/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH and Continental Wind Partners LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Continental Wind Partners LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-239/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(4) — Castro Verde special protection area — Lack of alternative solutions)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-239/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(4) - Castro Verde special protection area - Lack of alternative solutions)
   (2006/C 326/08)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and A. Caeiros, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent, and J.F. Ganderez and R. Gomes da Silva, advogados)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Construction of a motorway whose route crosses a special protection area for wild birds — Environmental impact assessment showing negative implications of the route — Existence of alternatives to the route constructed
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by implementing a project for a motorway whose route crosses the Castro Verde special protection area, notwithstanding the negative environmental impact assessment and without having demonstrated the absence of alternative solutions for the route concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security Commissioner, by Decision of 2 September 1996, in the case of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the Adjudication Officer (Case C-297/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96         I EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/7
may not be added to the ' Register of protected                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
designations'.                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
(•') OJ No L 184, 27 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .                                   — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon
                                                                                dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                          ( SAVE )( 1 ) and, in any event, by not communicating
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                  those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of
                                  Belgium                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                Directive,
                            Case C-294/96 )
                             ( 96/C 318/ 12 )                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                           put forward in Case C-294/96 ( 2 ); the period prescribed by
                                                                           the Directive expired on 31 December 1994 .
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                           (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p. 28 .
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                    ( 2 ) See page 7 of this ed . Official Journal .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty by not adopting                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli — by
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   order of that court of 9 June 1995 in the criminal
      Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola
      concerning medical devices ('),                                                                ( Case C-296/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/ 14 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                           Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189                ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli Division ) of
of the EC Treaty places Member States to whom Directives                   9 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
are addressed under an obligation to adopt the measures                    9 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
necessary to comply with those Directives within the time                  proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola on questions
limits set therein for their implementation. In the present                identical to those submitted in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
case, when the period prescribed by Directive 93/42/EEC                    C-75/95 ( 1 ).
expired on 1 July 1994 , the Kingdom of Belgium had not
adopted the necessary measures .                                           (') See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
 (') OJ No L 169 , 12 . 7 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security
                                                                           Commissioner, by Decision of 2 September 1996, in the case
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                    of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the Adjudication
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                                              Officer
                                  Belgium                                                            ( Case C-297/96 )
                            Case C-295 /96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/15 )
                              ( 96/C 318 / 13 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by decision of a Social Security
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Commissioner, of 2 September 1996 , which was received at
 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                        the Court Registry on 1 1 September 1996 , for a preliminary
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                          ruling in the case of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for               Adjudication Officer, on the following question :
 ---pagebreak---  No C 318/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 10 . 96
 How, if at all, would the answers given to the questions                   ( Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 27 August
 referred in the case of Snares v. Adjudication Officer ( Case              1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 C-20/96 )( 1 ) differ in the case of a claimant entitled under             11 September 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
 United Kingdom legislation to attendance allowance as an                  Oelmühle Hamburg Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt
 employed or self-employed person, in the light of the terms               Söhne     GmbH       &     Co .   KG     v.   Bundesanstalt      fur
 of the United Kingdom's declaration of 31 December 1986                   Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung ( Federal Office                     of
 pusuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                        Agriculture and Food ) on the following question :
  1408/71 ( 2 ) ' and of point 11 of Section O ( previously
 Section L ) of Annex VI to that Regulation ?
 (') Case C-20/96 Kelvin Albert Snares v. Adjudication Officer, ( OJ
       No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 ).                                   Is it compatible with Community law for German national
 ( 2 ) Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971        law to preclude the recovery of aid wrongly granted for the
       on the application of social security schemes to employed           processing of rape where the recipient, who was unaware of
       persons and their families moving within the Community ( OJ         the facts giving rise to the illegality of the notice of grant and
       No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p. 2 ).                                   whose ignorance thereof did not result from gross
                                                                           negligence ( paragraph 48 ( 2 ), seventh sentence, now
                                                                           paragraph 49a ( 2 ), second sentence, of the Ver
                                                                           waltungsverfahrensgesetz          ( Law on Administrative
                                                                           Procedure )), is able to rely, pursuant to Article 48 (2 ), sixth
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           sentence, of that Law ( paragraph 49a ( 2 ) of the new version )
 Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           in conjunction with paragraph 818 ( 3 ) of the Bürgerliches
 court of 27 August 1996 in the case of Oelmühle Hamburg
                                                                           Gesetzbuch ( Civil Code ), on the absence of ( unjust)
 Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG
                                                                           enrichment, where there would normally be held to be no
       v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung
                                                                           such enrichment if the recipient has already passed on the
                            ( Case C-298/96 )                             pecuniary advantage of the aid at the time when it is granted
                              ( 96/C 318/ 16 )                             by paying the target price provided for under Community
                                                                          legislation and has obtained no right of recourse, or merely a
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   worthless right of recourse, against the supplier of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                   processed rape ?
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  subsequently by Mr Hoff-Nielsen and Yves Cretien, then by
                         of 18 September 1996                             Mr Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.
                                                                          Berrisch ), supported by the Commission of the European
in Case T- 155/94: Climax Paper Converters Ltd v. Council                 Communities ( Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan ),
                      of the European Union ( 1 )                         application for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EC )
 (Anti-dumping duties — State-trading country — Individual                No 3664/93 of 22 December 1993 imposing a definitive
               treatment — Single dumping margin)                         anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of
                              ( 96/C 318 / 17 )                           photograph albums in bookbound form originating in the
                                                                          People's Republic of China and collecting definitively the
                                                                          provisional anti-dumping duty ( 2 ) — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                                                                          President, R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Azizi and J. D.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Cooke, Judges, Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                          Administrator, has given a judgment on 18 September 1996 ,
                                                                          in which it:
In Case T- 155/94 : Climax Paper Converters Ltd, having its
registered office in Hong Kong, represented by Izzet M.                   1 . dismisses the application;
Sinan, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Arendt and Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt against
the Council of the European Union ( Agents : represented                  2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of
initially by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and Jorge Monteiro,                            the Council;


title: Case C-609/14: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu formerly Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, intervener: Cristina Lenuța Stoica

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/14

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu formerly Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, intervener: Cristina Lenuța Stoica
   (Case C-609/14) (1)

   (2016/C 475/20)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-437/07: Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/24

         Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-437/07)
   (2007/C 297/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, in so far as the Comune di L'Aquila has awarded a public works contract for the design and construction of a rubber tramway for public transport in the town of L'Aquila by means of a procedure akin to the ‘project financing’ procedure, designed to culminate in the award of a works concession, and amended the preliminary project on which the tenders were to be based after publication of the contract notice, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts and, in particular, Articles 7 and 11 thereof, as well as its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of transparency and non-discrimination which constitute the corollary thereto;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Comune di L'Aquila (Municipality of L'Aquila) has awarded a public works contract for the design and construction of a rubber tramway for public transport in the town of L'Aquila by means of a ‘project financing’ procedure designed to culminate in the award of a works concession, not a public works contract. The Comune di L'Aquila also amended — after publication of the contract notice — the preliminary project on which the tenders were to be based.
   In the view of the Commission, the agreement between the Comune di L'Aquila and the construction group concerned constitutes a public works contract for the purposes of Community law. In consequence, the award of that contract by means of a procedure akin to the ‘project financing’ procedure, designed to culminate in the award of a works concession, is contrary to the rules laid down in Directive 93/37 and, in particular, to Articles 7 and 11 thereof. Furthermore, the amendment, after publication of the contract notice, of the project on which the tenders were to be based is incompatible with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, on which the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, are based.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.


title: Joined Cases C-286/09 and C-287/09: Order of the Court of 9 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)) — Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Officials — Retirement pension — Cumulation of periods of insurance — Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Taking account of periods of activity within the European Communities — Article 10 EC)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/14

      Order of the Court of 9 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)) — Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
      (Joined Cases C-286/09 and C-287/09) (1)

      (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Officials - Retirement pension - Cumulation of periods of insurance - Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Taking account of periods of activity within the European Communities - Article 10 EC)
      (2010/C 288/21)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09)

         Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Roma — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community — Interpretation of Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC — Old-age pension — Aggregation of insurance periods — Failure to take into account the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities

         Operative part of the order

      Article 10 EC, together with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not permit account to be taken of years worked by a European Union citizen in a European Union institution, such as the Commission of the European Communities, or in a European Union body, such as the Economic and Social Committee, with regard to the establishment of a right to a retirement pension under the national scheme, regardless of whether the person involved takes early retirement or retires at the usual age.

         (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-72/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Groupe Gascogne v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Proportionality)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Groupe Gascogne v Commission
   (Case T-72/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Proportionality)
   2012/C 6/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Gascogne SA (St Paul-lès-Dax, France) (represented initially by: C. Lazarus, then by P. Hubert and E. Durand, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for amendment of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-836/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/54

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-836/16)
   (2017/C 030/62)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 19 September 2016 in the case relating to State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector, notified under document C(2016) 5596, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an incorrect classification of the Polish retail sales tax as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU as the result of a manifestly incorrect assessment of the condition of selectivity.

                           —

                           The Polish retail sales tax cannot be held to be prima facie selective because, in its design, there are no derogations from the reference system applicable to that tax; the progressive tax rates constitute an inherent element of the reference system of that tax.

                           —

                           Even if the view were to be taken that the two progressive tax rates are not an element of the reference system applicable to the Polish retail sales tax, it would have to be held that at least the more frequently applied tax rate is an element of the reference system; furthermore, the progressive tax rates do not constitute, in any event, a derogation in favour of certain undertakings which, in the light of the intrinsic objective of that tax, are in a similar factual and legal situation to other undertakings.

                           —

                           The progressive tax rates and the threshold amounts for the taxable bases in the Polish retail sales tax are, in any event, consistent with the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of the principle of proportionality by the ordering of immediate suspension of the application of the progressive rates of the Polish retail sales tax.

                           —

                           It was not necessary to issue a suspension injunction given that there were serious doubts as to whether the Polish retail sales tax was selective.

                           —

                           It was not necessary to issue a suspension injunction in view of the Commission’s failure to demonstrate that the application of the Polish retail sales tax had sufficiently negative effects.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons in the contested decision is defective and insufficient.

                           —

                           The contested decision was not duly and sufficiently justified in so far as it contains an assessment of the condition of selectivity of the Polish retail sales tax.

                           —

                           The contested decision was not duly and sufficiently justified in so far as it orders the immediate suspension of the application of the progressive rates of the Polish retail sales tax.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 1999 in Case T-206/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
19.6.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 174/5
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission
                                                                          contained in the letter dated 9 Septernber 1998 addressed to
                         of 16 March 1999                                 the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Spain to the
                                                                          European Union, concerning the adoption of draft legislation
                                                                          intended to give effect, in national law, to Article 11 of
in Case T-147/98: Karola Gluiber v Council of the Euro-                   Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-                        Communities regarding transfers of pension rights — the
                                ties (1)                                  President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                          4 February 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                          1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                          (1999/C 174/10)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
In Case T-147/98: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim
(Germany), represented by Wolfgang Clausen and Wulf Claus-
en, Rechtsanwälte, Kiel (Germany), with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker & Braun,
16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, v Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities — application
for annulment of discriminatory measures taken against the
applicant by the Federal Republic of Germany, alternatively
for a declaration that the Council and the Commission should                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
have taken steps to contest those measures — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                                        of 9 March 1999
Registrar, made an order on 16 March 1999, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                              in Case T-206/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
2. The applicant is ordered to bear her own costs.                                           (Manifest inadmissibility)
(1) Notice of the application has not been published.                                             (1999/C 174/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-206/98: Clauni S.A., established at Agen (France),
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Jean-Marie Bissieres, company chairman, residing at Croix
                             INSTANCE                                     Blanche (France), SA Lomagenais, now known as SA Loma,
                                                                          established at Penne D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech,
                                                                          company chairman, residing at Canet (France), represented by
                        of 4 February 1999                                Daniel Veyssiere, of the Agen Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue,
in Case T-196/98 R: Eduardo Pefia Abizanda and others v                   v Commission of the European Communities — application
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                         for an order of the Court allowing a rebate application lodged
                                                                          by the first applicant with the French customs authorities on
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility of the                  23 October 1998 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
                            main action)                                  originating in Poland — the Court (Fourth Chamber), compo-
                                                                          sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili and
                                                                          P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                          (1999/C 174/11)
                                                                          9 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-196/98 R: Eduardo Peña Abizanda and 105 other                  2. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar,
and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Madrid Bar, with an                  (1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.
address for service at 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi
Valsesia, Julian Currall and José Rivas Andres) — application


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-42/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Maatschap J. B. en R. A. M. Elshof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Foot and mouth disease — Regulation (EC) No 1046/2001 — Grant of aid for the delivery of animals destined for rendering — Upper limit of aid determined on the basis of the average weight of animals per batch)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-42/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Maatschap J. B. en R. A. M. Elshof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (1)

   (Foot and mouth disease - Regulation (EC) No 1046/2001 - Grant of aid for the delivery of animals destined for rendering - Upper limit of aid determined on the basis of the average weight of animals per batch)
   (2005/C 171/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-42/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 23 January 2004, received at the Court on 3 February 2004, in the proceedings between Maatschap J. B. en R. A. M. Elshof and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The term 'batch' within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1046/2001 of 30 May 2001 adopting exceptional support measures for the markets in pigmeat and veal in the Netherlands refers to all calves which are delivered for rendering by a producer on one day in connection with one sales transaction.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.


title: Case C-53/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2013 in Case T-573/11 JAS Jet Air Service France v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/22

         Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2013 in Case T-573/11 JAS Jet Air Service France v Commission
   (Case C-53/14 P)
   2014/C 102/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the General Court as it is set out in the operative part of the judgment given on 3 December 2013 in Case T-573/11;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance by the company JAS Jet Air Service France in so far as it seeks the annulment of the Decision of the European Commission dated 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 dismissing the application for remission of import duties amounting to EUR 1 001 778,20 which it presented on 24 January 2008;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment by which the General Court upheld the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2011 dismissing the application for remission of import duties presented by the appellant.
   In the first place, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Articles 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1) and 239 of the Community Customs Code, (2) in so far as it failed to acknowledge the existence of a ‘special situation’ allowing the remission applied for. The General Court maintained that the appellant’s situation was not similar to that of the company CALBERSON BV (case REM 10/01), to which the Commission had granted the remission.
   In the second place, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed the articles cited above, in so far as it failed to take account, for the purpose of recognising the existence of a ‘special situation’, of the deficiency which took place at the level of the internal procedure for the issue and review of import authorisations without VAT, known as A12 (Article 275 of the French General Tax Code and its implementing provisions). The General Court reversed the burden of proof, and therefore infringed the general principles of law, by holding that it was for the appellant to establish precisely the consequences of that deficiency.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1).

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