title: Case C-200/09 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 March 2009 in Case T-249/06: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/10

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 March 2009 in Case T-249/06: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-200/09 P)
   2009/C 193/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, C. Clyne, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside point 1 of the Judgment;

               —

               dismiss the Application in its entirety;

               —

               order the Applicants to pay the Commission's costs in bringing this Appeal

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL — application of the Single Economic Entity-concept in the determination of the export price
   The Commission considers that the Court of First Instance makes two legal errors when it states: ‘According to consistent case-law concerning the calculation of normal value, but applicable by analogy to the calculation of the export price, the sharing of production and sales activities within a group formed by legally distinct companies does not alter the fact that one is dealing with a single economic entity which organises in that manner a series of activities which are carried out, in other cases, by an entity which is also a single entity from the legal point of view’.
   Firstly, the CFI erred by not providing any reasoning whatsoever as to why the so-called single economic entity concept (SEE-concept) would also be applicable by analogy to the determination of the export price in dumping calculations.
   Secondly, the CFI erred by not following the consistent earlier case-law of the Court of Justice with respect to the SEE-concept, including inter alia, Sharp Corporation, Minolta Camera, Ricoh and Canon-II, which decided the opposite.
   SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL — Burden of Proof and standard of review
   This ground of appeal relates to the burden of proof and the standard of judicial review. The Commission considers that on this point, in paragraphs 180-190, the CFI commits various legal errors by not applying the appropriate standard of review. While citing the judgment in Kundan and Tata, the CFI failed to take into account of the fact that after that judgment the wording of Art. 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation was adapted precisely to cater for situations such as the one at issue. This clearly leaves a certain margin of discretion to the institutions. The CFI applied the incorrect legal test, consequently requiring a particularly high burden of proof from the institutions, in an area where they enjoy the normal wide discretion. Therefore, the CFI has not shown, as it should have done, that there has been a manifest error in the appraisal of the facts by the institutions.
   THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL — Article 2(10) first paragraph of the Basic Regulation.
   This third ground challenges points 193-197 of the contested Judgment. It follows that if the first and or second ground of appeal are well-founded, then as a corollary to the CFI's own reasoning, its finding that 2(10), first paragraph, has been violated by the Institutions, is wrong in law.
   FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL — THE RIGHTS OF DEFENCE
   This ground is directed at points 200-211 of the Contested Judgment. The Commission considers that in those points, the CFI applied an excessively stringent and therefore unjustified test regarding the Applicant's rights of defence. The amount of the adjustment and the transactions it concerned had already been known to the Applicants for some time (since the first final information document). Moreover, the second final information document provided a clarification, in reaction to a comment which the Applicants had made after receiving that document; the Commission clarified, that the earlier mentioning of Art. 2(9) as a legal basis for the adjustment had been erroneous. Therefore, Applicants were informed, fully, of the exact reasons why the Commission intended to apply an adjustment, namely that it considered that Sepco acts as a trader which performs, for the Applicants, functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis.
   The Commission considers that by providing this information, it provided the Applicants with sufficient information to allow them to exercise their rights of defence. Therefore, the CFI commits a legal error when it implies, in point 201, that more should have been added in the paragraph of the final disclosure relating to this point. Contrary to what the CFI implies, the Applicants were aware of the reason why the Commission intended to include this adjustment in its proposal to the Council, namely that Sepco's relation with the applicants was covered by Art. 2(10)(i) second sentence. Moreover, the Commission considers that its position is supported by earlier rulings of the Court of Justice (e.g., the EFMA-case).
   Finally, the Commission considers that the CFI makes a legal error in point 209 when it ‘mixes’ the substantive issue whether it was lawful to apply the adjustment with the question whether the Applicants' rights of defence have been respected. It states: ‘It has been shown …. above, that [the institutions acted unlawfully by applying the adjustment]. Therefore, it must be concluded that’ by not furnishing its final motivation already at the time of the 2nd final disclosure, the institutions violated the Applicants' rights of defence. There is, however, contrary to what the CFI implies, no causal link between the two. The mere fact that the CFI finds that an adjustment was, in its view, unlawfully applied, does not mean that the Applicant's rights of defence were violated. The question is whether the institutions provided the Applicants', during the administrative procedure, with the necessary information to allow it to submit information. The fact that the CFI considers the adjustment to be unlawful does not mean that ‘therefore’ during the administrative procedure the rights of defence of the Applicants have been violated.
   AS TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT OF JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THE PLEAS AT ISSUE ITSELF (or whether it should refer the matter back to the CFI)
   In the Commission's view, should the Court rule that the above pleas in law are founded, and set aside point 1 of the operative part of the Contested Judgment, it would have a sufficiently developed file in front of it to rule on the relevant pleas itself (and to reject them). However, this is a matter for the Court and the Commission will not go into it further.


title: Case T-252/10: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Cross Czech v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Contractual and non-decision-making character of the letter — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/19

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Cross Czech v Commission
   (Case T-252/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure - Contractual and non-decision-making character of the letter - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 282/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cross Czech a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Schollaert, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission letter of 12 March 2010, reference number INFSO-O2/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676, confirming the findings of financial audit report 09-BA74-006 concerning the financial statements declared by the applicant over the period 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 for three contracts concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Cross Czech a.s. is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-25/09: Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Johnson & Johnson v OHIM — Simca (YourCare)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/49

         Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Johnson & Johnson v OHIM — Simca (YourCare)
   (Case T-25/09)
   (2009/C 69/108)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Johnson & Johnson GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Gérard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simca Srl (Cesano Boscone (MI), Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2008 in case R 175/2008-1;

               —

               Allow the opposition and reject the trade mark application No 4 584 587 for the figurative mark ‘YourCare’; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘YourCare’, for goods in classes 3, 8 and 21

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 913 574 of the word mark ‘Young Care’ for goods in classes 3 and 5; German trade mark registration No 30 416 018 of the figurative mark ‘bebe young care’ for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 44; German trade mark registration No 30 414 452 of the word mark ‘Young Care’ for goods in class 21.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in its entirety and rejected the Community trade mark application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 74(1) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account factual evidence provided by the applicant.


title: Case T-119/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2006 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission (Officials — Career development report — Application for annulment — Assessment period 2001-2002 — Opinion of previous immediate superior — Failure of assessor to take into account — Claim for compensation — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2006 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission
   (Case T-119/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - Application for annulment - Assessment period 2001-2002 - Opinion of previous immediate superior - Failure of assessor to take into account - Claim for compensation - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 281/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of the applicant's career development report for the assessment period 2001-2002 and an application for the payment of EUR 30 000 in damages for the non-material damage alleged.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 12.06.2004.


title: Case C-501/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2016 in Case T-429/15: Monster Energy v EUIPO — MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE (MAD CATZ)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/14

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2016 in Case T-429/15: Monster Energy v EUIPO — MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE (MAD CATZ)
   (Case C-501/16 P)
   (2017/C 112/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 16 February 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-395/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 July 2015 by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/55

         Appeal brought on 14 July 2015 by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC

   (Case T-395/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, agents, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29/04/2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, in respect of the plea challenged in the appeal, and

               —

               to order the Respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error in law on behalf of the Civil Service Tribunal with regards to the scope of the right to be heard.

                           —

                           Without relying on any case-law nor providing specific reasoning, the Civil Service Tribunal adopted an extensive interpretation of the scope of the right to be heard, applicable not only to allegations made vis-à-vis an individual, but also to the consequences ascribed to the behavior of that individual. Besides, the approach taken by the Civil Service Tribunal as to the scope of the right to be heard is contradicted by its very findings in the contested judgment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law on behalf of the Tribunal in the conclusion it reached further to the assessment as to whether in the absence of this alleged irregularity, the procedure might have led to a different result.

                           —

                           The Civil Service Tribunal having acknowledged that the relationship of trust between the Respondent and the Appellant was irreparably broken, the absence of the alleged irregularity would not have led to a different result.


title: Case C-41/01: Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 79/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.3.2001
2.    Irrespective of the reply to the preceding question, does         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      the allocation to such a public undertaking of a significant
      proportion of the proceeds from the charge amount to              —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      abuse of a dominant position as a result of a State                     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      legislative measure and is it thus contrary to Article 86 in            Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996
      conjunction with Article 90 of the Treaty?                              concerning integral pollution prevention and control(1)
                                                                              or in any event by failing to inform the Commission
                                                                              thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
3.    May the allocation to such an undertaking of a significant              obligations under that Directive, and
      proportion of the abovementioned charge be defined as
      State aid, within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty,
                                                                        —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
      and does it therefore justify, in the event that the
      Commission is either not notified or adopts a decision
      finding the aid to be incompatible with the common
      market, pursuant to Article 93, the exercise by national          Pleas in law and main arguments
      courts of their powers — in accordance with the case-law
      of the Court of Justice — to ensure disapplication of             Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
      illegal and/or incompatible aid?                                  the result to be achieved, upon each Member State carries by
                                                                        implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
4.    Does the appropriation to the abovementioned public               period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
      undertaking, ab origine, of a significant proportion of the       expired on 30 October 1999 without the United Kingdom
      proceeds from a State charge levied for or upon the               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
      unloading or loading of goods at ports, without such              directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
      payment being reciprocated by any services rendered by
      the AMM itself, constitute a charge having an effect
                                                                        (1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
      equivalent to a customs duty on imports (prohibited by
      Articles 12 and 13 of the Treaty), or an internal taxation
      imposed on products of other Member States in excess of
      that imposed on similar domestic products (Article 95),
      or a barrier to imports, prohibited by Article 30?
5.    In the event that the national provisions are in conflict
      with Community law, do the factors set out in the
      foregoing paragraphs, considered individually, affect the         Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Commission
      charge as a whole or only the portion allocated to the            of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
      AMM?                                                                                lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-41/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/38)
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice on 1 February 2001 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, of the Legal Service of the
Action brought on 29 January 2001 by the Commission of                  Commission of the European Communities, with an address
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                     for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                         (Case C-39/01)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 79/37)
                                                                        (1) declare that, by having, contrary to the judgment of the
                                                                              Court of Justice of 22 October 1998 in Case C-301/95 (1),
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                   excluded in advance from the environmental impact
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January                    assessment requirement whole classes of projects listed
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                         1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the                  and private projects on the environment, the Federal
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                  Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                         obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/21
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay, for each                   to the Federal Republic of Germany, a draft law which it
      day’s delay, following delivery of the judgment to be                  has communicated is intended to ensure compliance with
      given herein, in the fulfilment by it of the obligations               the judgment of the Court of Justice in this regard;
      referred to in (1) above, a penalty in the sum of                      however, it has not yet been enacted.
      EUR 237 600, to be remitted to account H 1 KEG entitled
      ‘Eigene Mittel der EG’ maintained by the Commission              —     The Commission’s computation of the amount of the
      with the Federal Cashier in Bonn;                                      penalty applied for is based on a coefficient of 12 in
                                                                             respect of the seriousness of the infringement, a coef-
(3) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                  ficient of 1,5 in respect of the duration thereof and a
                                                                             factor of 26,4 in respect of the effectiveness of the
                                                                             penalty, in accordance with its method of calculation as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              published in (3).
—     The legislative rules which the Court of Justice held to be      (1) [1998] ECR I-6154.
      contrary to the Treaty in Case C-301/95, referred to in          (2) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
      (1) above, have to date remained unchanged. According            (3) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2002 in Case T-206/00: Merja Hult v the Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Classification — Statement of reasons — Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Commission decision on the criteria applicable to appointment to grade and classification in step on recruitment — Additional seniority in grade — Conditions — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
C 109/44               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                        7 February 2002                                  European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for
                                                                         annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 October
in Case T-88/00: Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmon-                1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant’s
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                 definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1 — the Court of
                             (OHIM) (1)                                  First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras,
                                                                         President, V. Tiili and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,
(Community trade mark — Torch shape — Three-dimen-                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 Janu-
sional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive                  ary 2002, in which it:
  character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                         (2002/C 109/87)                                 1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999
                                                                               fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant’s
                  (Language of the case: German)                               definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                         2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-88/00, Mag Instrument Inc., established in Ontario
(United States of America), represented by A. Nette, W. von
der Osten-Sacken, H. Stratmann, G. Rahn and U. Hocke,
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 285.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly and
S. Bonne): Action brought against the decision of the Second
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February
2000 (Cases R-237/1999-2 to R-241/1999-2) refusing regis-
tration of five three-dimensional trade marks consisting of
torch shapes, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura
Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, Registrar, has                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                                7 February 2002
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                         in Case T-211/00: Aldo Kuijer v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                         (Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public
                                                                         access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for
                                                                         access — Protection of the public interest — International
                                                                                relations — Manifest error — Partial (access)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 31 January 2002                                                            (2002/C 109/89)
in Case T-206/00: Merja Hult v the Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Classification — Statement of reasons —
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Commission decision
on the criteria applicable to appointment to grade and                   In Case T-211/00, Aldo Kuijer, residing in Utrecht (Nether-
classification in step on recruitment — Additional seniority             lands), represented by O.W. Brouwer and T. Janssens, lawyers,
    in grade — Conditions — Principle of legal certainty)                with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
                                                                         European Union (agents: M. Bauer and M. Bishop): Application
                         (2002/C 109/88)                                 for annulment of the Council’s decision notified to the
                                                                         applicant by letter of 7 June 2000 refusing him access to
                   (Language of the case: French)                        certain documents from the Centre for Information, Discussion
                                                                         and Exchange on Asylum (‘CIREA’) which were requested
                                                                         under Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on
In Case T-206/00: Merja Hult, an official of the Commission of           public access to Council documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43),
the European Communities, residing in Howald (Luxembourg),               Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:


title: Case T-291/04: Action brought on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International, Inc., against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/29

         Action brought on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International, Inc., against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-291/04)
   (2004/C 273/58)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom and Enviro Tech International, Inc., Illinois, USA, represented by Mr C. Mereu and Mr K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               I.

               partially annul Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ L 152, p. 1) with respect to the listing of nPB as a highly flammable (R11) and a Category 2 substance for reproductive toxicity (R60);

               II.

               declare the Commission liable for damages suffered by the applicants to date and pending these proceedings as a result of the Commission's unlawful conduct, including but not limited to its denial of the applicants' request and related adoption of the contested decision, and to compensate the applicants for such damages in the provisional amount of EUR 350 000;

               III.

               declare the Commission liable for imminent losses and damages foreseeable with sufficient certainty, even if such losses and damages cannot be precisely assessed;

               IV.

               order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) insofar as it concerns the classification of n-propyl bromide.
   The pleas in law and main arguments invoked in this case are similar to those invoked in case T-422/03, Enviro Tech Europe and Enviro Tech International against Commission (OJ 2004 C 47, p. 35).

      (1)  OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 In Case C-396/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   11 March 2004
   In Case C-396/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Identification of waters affected by pollution and waters which could be affected by pollution - Designation of vulnerable zones which contribute to pollution - Establishment of action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones - Monitoring and review)
   (2004/C 94/07)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-396/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R.B. Wainwright), with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Ireland (Agent: D.J. O'Hagan), with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a declaration that: by failing, within the time-limits provided for in Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1),

               —

               to identify completely waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I and to notify these to the Commission,

               —

               to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to Article 3(2) and/or Article 3(4) thereof,

               —

               to establish action programmes in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, and

               —

               to carry out correctly and completely monitoring and review of waters in accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Directive,

         Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which:

               1)

               declares that by failing, within the time-limits provided for in Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,

                           —

                           to identify completely waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I,

                           —

                           to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to Article 3(2) and/or Article 3(4) thereof,

                           —

                           to establish action programmes in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, and

                           —

                           to carry out correctly and completely monitoring and review of waters in accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Directive,

                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.

               2)

               Orders Ireland to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.


title: Case C-57/04: Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 85/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         3.4.2004
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                         lic of Germany                                 —     declare that, by not implementing the laws, regulations
                                                                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-57/04)                                       Commission Directive 2002/70/EC (1) of 26 July 2002
                                                                              establishing requirements for the determination of levels
                                                                              of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs, or in any
                         (2004/C 85/32)                                       event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                              Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser,
and Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s Legal                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                        The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                        28 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           (1) OJ L 209 of 6.8.2002, p. 15.
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission
      ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (1), or, in any
      event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.           Justice (England and Wales) by order of that court dated
                                                                        21 February 2003, in the case of Centralan Property Ltd
                                                                               against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-63/04)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on                                         (2004/C 85/34)
27 November 2002.
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22.                                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                        Justice (England and Wales) dated 21 February 2003, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2004, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Centralan Property Ltd and
                                                                        Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following
                                                                        question:
Action brought on 12 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                Where: During the period of adjustment provided for in
                                                                        article 20(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) a taxable person
                                                                        disposes of a building which is treated as a capital good; and
                         (Case C-62/04)
                                                                        The disposal of the building is effected by way of two supplies,
                                                                        being (i) the grant of a 999 year lease of the building (an
                         (2004/C 85/33)                                 exempt transaction under article 13(B)(b) of the Directive) for
                                                                        a premium of £6 million, followed three days later by (ii) the
                                                                        sale of the freehold reversion (a taxable transaction under
                                                                        article 13(B)(g) and article 4(3)(a) of the Directive) for a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           price of £1,000 plus VAT and which either are or are not
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February             preordained in the sense that once the first had been carried
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     out there was no chance that the second would not be, is
represented by Chiara Cattabriga, of its Legal Service, acting as       article 20(3) of the Sixth VAT Directive to be interpreted so
Agent.                                                                  that:


title: Case T-119/09: Action brought on 23 March 2009 — Protege International v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/43

         Action brought on 23 March 2009 — Protege International v Commission
   (Case T-119/09)
   2009/C 113/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Protege International Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Shefet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 23 January relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/39.414 — Protégé International/Pernod Ricard).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 23 January 2009 whereby the Commission, in making a finding of no sufficient Community interest to continue with the investigation, rejected the complaint brought by the applicant against Pernod Ricard regarding alleged abuse of dominant position committed by the latter in the Irish whiskey market consisting, first, of legal proceedings filed by Pernod Ricard against the applicant with regard to the application for registration as trade marks of ‘WILD GEESE’, ‘WILD GEESE RARE IRISH WHISKEY’ and ‘WILD GEESE IRISH SOLDIERS AND HEROS’ by the applicant and, second, in a refusal to supply.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that

               —

               the legal proceedings initiated by Pernod Ricard had the aim, not of protecting Pernod Ricard’s intellectual property rights in its trade mark ‘WILD TURKEY’, since no risk of confusion exists between the opposing marks, but that of eliminating the applicant as a competitor of Pernod Ricard in the Irish whiskey market;

               —

               there was an abuse of dominant position when Pernod Ricard refused to provide Irish whiskey to the applicant by reason of the latter’s refusal to accept conditions restricting sale to markets approved by Pernod Ricard;

               —

               there is a Community interest, since the alleged abuses concern different Member States and the Community territory as a whole.


title: Case C-410/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/3

         Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-410/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Syndial SpA (represented by: L. Acquarone and S. Grassi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 9 February 2017, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-84/15: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Laboratorios Thea v EUIPO — Sebapharma (Sebacur)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/67

         Order of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Laboratorios Thea v EUIPO — Sebapharma (Sebacur)
   (Case T-84/15) (1)

   (2016/C 270/74)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-424/05 P: Appeal brought on  29 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on  13 September 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/18

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-424/05 P)
   (2006/C 10/35)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Kraemer and M. Velardo, acting as Agents.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings, including her own costs in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits a single plea against the judgment under appeal alleging breach of Community law in paragraphs 31 to 36 and 42 of that judgment. More precisely, it considers that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the condition relating to ‘work done for another State’ laid down at the end of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-480/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA v European Commission, Electrabel SA (Appeal — State aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market — Condition requiring prior repayment by the beneficiary of earlier aid declared unlawful — Concept of ‘economic unit’ — Joint control by two separate parent companies — Distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application — Errors and defective reasoning)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA v European Commission, Electrabel SA
   (Case C-480/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid declared compatible with the common market - Condition requiring prior repayment by the beneficiary of earlier aid declared unlawful - Concept of ‘economic unit’ - Joint control by two separate parent companies - Distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application - Errors and defective reasoning)
   2011/C 55/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent), Electrabel SA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 September 2009 in Case T 303/05 ACEAElectrabel Produzione SpA v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               orders Electrabel SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Affaire T-140/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Philips Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a packet of cigarettes — Refusal of registration — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Philips Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes)
   (Affaire T-140/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a packet of cigarettes - Refusal of registration - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 247/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Products, SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis and C.S. Moreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 24 February 2006, (Case R 0075/2005-4) concerning registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The action is dismissed;

               2)

                  Philip Morris Products SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-375/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Word mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)
      (Case T-375/12) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Word mark KASTEEL - Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: R. Dequiré-Portier, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 652/2011-2), in opposition proceedings between Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM and Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  (1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  (2)

                  Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM.

         (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


C 289/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.10.2001
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Commission                     wright and Joëlle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                     service in Luxembourg.
                            Belgium
                        (Case C-319/01)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2001/C 289/34)                                —     declare that, by omitting to take all the measures necess-
                                                                             ary in order to ensure the full and proper transposition
                                                                             of Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                         and (c) and 23(2), in conjunction with Annexes II, IV, V
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      and VI, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on 14 August 2001 by the Commission of the European                          on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen and Joelle                       and flora (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply
Adda, acting as Agents.                                                      with its obligations under that directive and under the
                                                                             third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing
                                                                             the European Community;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
      Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of         Pleas in law and main arguments
      certain public and private projects on the environment (1),
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                            The Commission observes that the time-limit for transposition
                                                                       of the directive expired on 5 June 1994 without Belgium
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   having transposed, by means of provisions establishing a
                                                                       precise legal framework, the provisions listed above, save as
                                                                       regards the ‘Bruxelles-Capitale’ region, which on 26 October
                                                                       2000 adopted a decree with regard to the conservation of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. As regards the
                                                                       concepts defined in Article 1 of the directive, these need to be
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          transposed on account of their importance for the purposes of
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC         interpreting the other provisions of the directive. Lastly, as
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary          regards Articles 15 and 16(1) of the directive, the Commission
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic          considers that a Member State may not decline to transpose
law in such a way that, before the expiry of the period                those provisions unless it has waived in advance its right to
prescribed for doing so, they are fully effective. That period,        avail itself of the derogation possibilities afforded therein.
which is laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC,
expired on 14 March 1999 without Belgium having
implemented all its provisions throughout the national terri-          (1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
tory.
(1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-224/99 (1)
Action brought on 28 August 2001 by the Commission                                               (2001/C 289/36)
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                            Belgium
                                                                       By order of 19 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                        (Case C-324/01)                                the register of Case C-224/99: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v French Republic.
                        (2001/C 289/35)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice on 28 August 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Richard Wain-


title: Action brought on 31 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-184/96)

text:
No C 210/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 7 . 96
      instead of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, has resulted in a        Action brought on 29 May 1996 by the Federal Republic of
      breach of the essential procedural requirements laid               Germany against the Commission of the European
      down by that provision . Thus :                                                                Communities
                                                                                Case C-182/96 )
      — the Act was adopted without the submission of a
           proposal by the Commission ( it was adopted on the                                          96/C 210/ 17 )
           initiative of the French Republic ),
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
      — the Act was adopted without the European                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
           Parliament being consulted ; the European                     European Communities on 29 May 1996 by the Federal
           Parliament     was     not    even   informed   of   the      Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
           initiative ,                                                  Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
                                                                         and Sabine Maass, probationary Regierungsràtin in the
      — since the Council chose to act within the framework              same Ministry.
           of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, its
           decision should have been unanimous, whereas, on
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the basis of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, the Act
           could ( from 1 January 1996 ) have been adopted by a          — annul Decision (K 96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
           qualified majority, pursuant to Article 100c ( 3 ) of               13 March 1 996 concerning fiscal aid in the field of
           the EC Treaty,                                                      depreciation favouring German undertakings,
      — by adopting the Act of 4 March 1996 in the
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           form of 'joint action', the Council created a
           misunderstanding as to the precise legal nature of the
           instrument .                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
( ] ) 96/ 197/JHA, OJ No L 63 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
( 2 ) OJ No L 164, 14 . 7 . 1995 , p . 1 .                               in Case C-46/96(M .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 , p . 4 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
21 March 1996, in the case of Georg Wilkens v.                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                 Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover                          Genova — Sezione prima civile — by an order of 9 May
                           ( Case C-181 /96 )                            1996 in the case of Icat Food SRL and Ministero delle
                                                                                Finanze dello Stato
                             ( 96/C 210/16 )
                                                                                ( Case C-183 /96 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                               ( 96/C 210/ 18 )
European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court ) of 21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court               European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
Registry on 29 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                    Genova — Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
the case of Georg Wilkens v. Landwirtschaftskammer                       Civil Section ) of 9 May 1996 which was received at the
( Chamber of Agriculture ) Hannover on the following                     Court Registry on 30 May 1996 . The grounds of the order
questions :                                                              and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are the
                                                                         same as in Case C-47/95 , inter alia (') .
 1 . Does the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) of
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84, as amended by                       f 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 1 ), preclude granting a
       provisional special reference quantity to producers who
       have been asked to repay a non-marketing or conversion
       premium on account of a breach of the undertaking
       given by them ?
                                                                         Action brought on 31 May 1996 by the Commission of the
2 . If so, is that rule compatible with the Community law                      European Communities against the French Republic
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
       and proportionality ?                                                                      ( Case C-l 84/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/ 19 )
 (!) OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 35 .
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 31 May 1 996 by the Commission of
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 210/9
the European Communities, represented by Hendrik Van                  protection of property and the principles of equal treatment
Lier and Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an             and protection of legitimate expectations ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez
de la Cruz, of its Legal Service .                                    (') OJ No L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 I, p . 176 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 86 , 1 . 4 . 1992 , p . 83 .
— declare that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of 9 August
     1993 relating to preparations with a basis of foie gras,
    without taking account of the contents of the detailed
    opinion and the .reasoned opinion of the Commission
    concerning mutual recognition, the French Republic has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the          Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
    Treaty,                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-187/96 )
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                                     ( 96/C 210/21 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice on 3 June 1 996 by the Commission of
Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty : the                     the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
Commission considers that, while the prevention of fraud              of the Commission's Legal Service , with an address for
constitutes a legitimate objective, national rules preventing         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gômez de la
the marketing, under the names provided for therein, of               Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
products which do not comply with the requirements laid               Centre, Kirchberg.
down in those rules are disproportionate . The Commission
acknowledges that, in the absence of any equivalent rules in
the other Member States, the mutual recognition provision             The applicant claims that the Court should :
which it requires will not have any immediate effect;
however, it regards such a provision as necessary, in order           — declare that, in so far as it excludes, by regulation or
that the marketing in France of preparations with a basis of                administrative practice, account being taken in
foie gras which are legally manufactured and marketed on                    awarding seniority and grading for salary purposes to an
the territory of another Member State should not be                         employee in the Greek public service of previous service
prohibited in the future .                                                  in the public service of another Member State of the
                                                                            Community, on the sole ground that the previous service
                                                                            was not performed in the national public service, the
                                                                            Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                            Community law, in particular Articles 5 and 48 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty and Article 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 1612/68 ( M ,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 19 March
1996 in the case of Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt                     — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                               Trier
                         ( Case C-186/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                            96/C 210/20 )
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the said regulations, although
                                                                      not comprising express discrimination by reason of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                nationality, nevertheless introduce covert discrimination to
European Communities by decision of the Bundesfinanzhof               the detriment of nationals of other Member States of the
( Federal Finance Court ) of 19 March 1996 , which was                Community . The fact that in certain cases previous service in
received at the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a                 a foreign public service will , exceptionally, be recognized
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefan Demand v.                    corroborates non-recognition in all other cases . Moreover,
Hauptzollamt Trier on the following question :                        the case-law of the Areios Pagos ( Greek Supreme Court of
                                                                      Cassation ), which is consistent with Community law, on the
Are the combined provisions of Article 4(1 ) and the first            matter, relied upon by the Greek authorities, shows that the
paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 (')           regulations in question are obscure and give rise to legal
— whereby the suspension , under Article 5 c ( 3 ) ( g ) of           disputes .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( 2 ), as amended by Regulation
( EEC ) No 8 1 6/92 ( 3 ), of part of the reference quantities       The Commission maintains that those regulations are
allocated to producers was transformed without                       capable of deterring Greek citizens from exercising their
compensation into a permanent reduction of those reference            right to free movement within the Community and adds that
quantities, without exempting from that reduction at least            although the Member States are free, in the absence of
additional quantities acquired by producers — compatible              harmonization, to lay down the conditions under which
with Community law, and in particular with the right to the          previous service in the public sector will be recognized,


title: Case C-274/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(f) — Exemption from VAT of supplies of services by independent groups of persons to their members — Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) — Right of deduction for the members of the group — Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 — Actions of a member in his own name and on behalf of the group)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-274/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(f) - Exemption from VAT of supplies of services by independent groups of persons to their members - Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) - Right of deduction for the members of the group - Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 - Actions of a member in his own name and on behalf of the group))
   (2017/C 213/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, F. Kremer and P.-E. Partsch, avocats, and B. Gasparotti, acting as expert)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by providing for the value added tax (VAT) regime applicable to independent groups of persons, as defined, first, in Article 44(1)(y) of the consolidated text of the loi du 12 février 1979 concernant la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (Law of 12 February 1979 on value added tax), read in conjunction with Article 2(a) and Article 3 of the règlement grand-ducal du 21 janvier 2004 relatif à l’exonération de la TVA des prestations de services fournies à leurs membres par des groupements autonomes de personnes (Grand-Ducal Regulation of 21 January 2004 on the exemption from VAT of supplies of services by independent groups of persons to their members), second, in Article 4 of that regulation, read in conjunction with circulaire administrative no707, du 29 janvier 2004 (administrative circular No 707 of 29 January 2004), in so far as it comments on Article 4 of that regulation, and, third, in the note of 18 December 2008 drafted by the working group within the comité d’observation des marchés (Market Observation Committee, COBMA) with agreement from the administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and Land Authority), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2017.


title: Case C-106/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Lidl & Companhia v Fazenda Pública

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Lidl & Companhia v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-106/10)
   2010/C 113/49
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lidl & Companhia

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Intervening Party: Ministério Público

      Questions referred

   Is point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78, read in conjunction with point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79, of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 to be interpreted as prohibiting, in the case of intra-Community purchases, the inclusion in the taxable amount for VAT of the vehicle tax introduced by Law No 22-A/2007 of 29 June 2007?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2002 In Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00: Métropole télévision SA (M6) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Decision granting exemption — Television rights — Eurovision system — Article 81(1) and (3) EC — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
21.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 323/31
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 October 2002
                        of 17 October 2002
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/
                                                                          00: Métropole télévision SA (M6) and Others v Com-
in Case T-180/00: Astipesca, SL v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                        mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition — Decision granting exemption — Television
(Fisheries — Reduction of Community financial aid —                       rights — Eurovision system — Article 81(1) and (3) EC —
Action for annulment — Articles 44 and 47 of Regulation                                    Manifest error of assessment)
(EEC) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1116/88 — Principle of proportionality — Action for
                           compensation)                                                          (2002/C 323/49)
                                                                                (Languages of the case: French, Spanish and Portuguese)
                          (2002/C 323/48)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00,
                                                                          Métropole télévision SA (M6), established in Neuilly-sur-Seine
                                                                          (France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-185/00,
                                                                          Antena 3 de Televisión SA, established in Madrid (Spain),
                                                                          represented by F. Pombo García, E. Garayar Gutiérrez and
In Case T-180/00, Astipesca, SL, established in Huelva (Spain),           R. Alonso Pérez-Villanueva, lawyers, with an address for service
represented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and                     in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-216/00, Gestevisión
M.D. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers, v Commission of the Euro-                  Telecinco SA, established in Madrid, represented by S. Muñoz
pean Communities (Agents: initially L. Visaggio, and, sub-                Machado and M. López-Contreras Gonzalez, lawyers, with an
sequently, S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Guerra Fernández):                  address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-299/
Application for, first, annulment of the Commission’s fax of              00, SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA,
5 May 2000 informing the applicant of the payment, on 4 May               established in Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represented by C. Bo-
2000, of part of the balance of the financial aid granted to              telho Moniz, lawyer, , supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen
project SM/ESP/20/92 and of the contents of the Commission’s              GmbH (DSF), established in Ismaning (Germany), represented
letter of 18 May 2000, reducing the abovementioned aid and,               by K. Metzlaff, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
second, compensation on the grounds of the allegedly unlawful             bourg, in Case T-299/00, and by Reti Televisive Italiane Spa
suspension of payment of the balance of that aid and of the               (RTI), established in Rome (Italy), represented by G. Amorelli,
abovementioned reduction, the Court of First Instance (Third              lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, in Case
Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and              T-300/00, v Commission of the European Communities
J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the             (Agents: in Case T-185/00: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin; in
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002, in which              Cases T-216/00 and T-299/00: K. Wiedner, E. Gippini Fournier
it has ruled:                                                             and J. Rivas Andrés, and in Case T-300/00: Wiedner and
                                                                          M. França), supported by Union européenne de radio-télévision
                                                                          (UER), established in Grand-Saconnex (Switzerland), represen-
                                                                          ted by D. Waelbroeck and M. Johnsson, lawyers, with an
1.     Dismisses the application;                                         address for service in Luxembourg, in Cases T-185/00, T-216/
                                                                          00, T-299/00 and T-300/00, and by Radiotelevisión Española
                                                                          (RTVE), established in Madrid, represented by J. Gutiérrez
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Gisbert, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, in
                                                                          Cases T-216/00 and T-299/00: Application for annulment of
                                                                          Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May 2000 relating
                                                                          to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                          IV/32.150 — Eurovision) (OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18), the Court
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                          of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                          composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung,
                                                                          P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          8 October 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/32                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
1.     Annuls Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May                     2000), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC       of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
       Treaty (IV/32.150 — Eurovision);                                     Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which it:
2.     Orders the Commission to pay its own costs, together with
       those of the applicants and of the intervener Reti Televisive
       Italiane Spa;                                                        1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 30 June 2000,
                                                                                refusing to acknowledge the eligibility of the applicant for the
3.     Orders DSF Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH to bear the costs                  Programme encouraging the development and distribution of
       of its intervention;                                                        European audiovisual works (MEDIA II — Development and
                                                                                distribution) (1996-2000);
4.     Orders the intervener Union européenne de radio-télévision to
       bear its own costs, together with those incurred by Métropole        2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
       télévision SA, Antena 3 de Televisión SA and SIC — Sociedade
       Independente de Comunicação SA for their interventions;
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
5.     Orders the intervener Radiotelevisión Española to bear its own
       costs, together with those incurred by Antena 3 de Televisión
       SA for its intervention;
6.     Orders Gestevisión Telecinco SA to bear the costs it incurred in
       connection with the intervention of the Union européenne de
       radio-télévision and of Radiotelevisión Española.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, C 302 of 21.10.2000 and C 355 of
     9.12.2000.                                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
                                                                            in Joined Case T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi
                                                                            and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           Communities ( 1)
                          of 15 October 2002                                (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Article 29(1) of the
                                                                            Staff Regulations — Priority of officials — Rejection of
in Case T-233/00: Scanbox Entertainment A/S v Com-                          candidatures of temporary members of staff — Appointment
            mission of the European Communities (1)                         of an official — Prohibition of discrimination — Statement
                                                                            of reasons — Interests of the service — Fourth and fifth
                                                                            paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of
(Programme encouraging the development and distribution                     other servants — Duty to have regard for the interests of
of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Automatic                                             officials — Vacancy notice)
         support for distribution — Recipient company)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/51)
                            (2002/C 323/50)
                      (Language of the case: Danish)                                              (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-233/00, Scanbox Entertainment A/S, established in
Farum (Denmark), represented by T. Steffensen, lawyer, v                    In Joined Cases T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: N. Ras-                     Evi Hainz, former members of the temporary staff of the
mussen and H. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in Varese
the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2000 refusing to                       (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers,
recognise the applicant’s eligibility for the programme encour-             with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
aging the development and distribution of European audiovisu-               mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
al works (Media II — Development and distribution) (1996-                   D. Waelbroeck), application:


title: Action brought on 28 November 1997 by David T. Keeling against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case T-297/97)

text:
24.1.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 26/9
Action brought on 26 November 1997 by Dimitrios                    Action brought on 28 November 1997 by David T.
Coussios against the Commission of the European                    Keeling against the Office for Harmonization in the
                          Communities                                      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                       (Case T-295/97)                                                   (Case T-297/97)
                          (98/C 26/16)                                                     (98/C 26/17)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Communities on 28 November 1997 by David T. Keeling,
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, with an address
1997 by Dimitrios Coussios, resident in Brussels, Belgium,         for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
living temporarily in Athens, Greece, represented by               Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie-Adelaïde.
Georgios Sakellaropoulos of the Athens Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                   Ð annul Decision ADM-97-3 of the President of the
                                                                       Office of 21 February 1997 concerning the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            organization of the Boards of Appeal, as revised on
                                                                       27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Ð find that the action for annulment of Decision                   Ð order the office to pay the costs of the action.
     No 5458/26.9.1997 (R/403/97) of the appointing
     authority is admissible,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð declare that the applicant is entitled to an invalidity          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     pension at a rate of 29 % (4 % + 25 %) payable from           those raised in Case T-148/97 (OJ C 199, 28.6.1997,
     1 December 1993,                                              p. 39). The present application, based on Article 179 of
                                                                   the EC Treaty, is being lodged as a precautionary measure,
                                                                   lest the action for annulment in Case T-148/97
Ð classify the applicant's case under Article 78 of the            commenced by the applicant pursuant to Article 173 of
     Staff Regulations, so that he receives an invalidity          the EC Treaty is declared inadmissible by the Court.
     pension equal in amount to the retirement pension to
     which he would have been entitled if he had been in
     service on reaching 65 years of age, that is to say 70 %
     of the basic salary,
                                                                   Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Pierre-Alexis
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   Feral against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                (Case T-301/97)
                                                                                (98/C 26/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The contested decision is unlawful because the appointing
authority arbitrarily set the applicant's invalidity rate at       An action against the Committee of the Regions was
15,5 %, without the Medical Committee provided for                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
under the Staff Regulations having first given an opinion,         Communities on 2 December 1997 by Pierre-Alexis
when the rate applicable to him is in reality much higher.         Feral, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
                                                                   Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The statement of reasons for the contested decision is
faulty because it wrongly proceeds on the basis that
Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations pursue                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
different objectives when, as is acknowledged, application
of one of those articles does not affect application of the        Ð annul the decision of 2 September 1997 of the
other.                                                                 Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions
                                                                       refusing to pay the applicant daily allowances for a
                                                                       period of 10 months by virtue of his status as a
                                                                       probationer official,