title: Case C-147/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2014  — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2014 — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV
   (Case C-147/14)
   2014/C 194/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL

      Respondents: AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

      Question referred

   In view of, inter alia, Articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) must Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between a Community trade mark in which an Arabic word is dominant and a sign in which a different, but visually similar, Arabic word is dominant, the difference in pronunciation and meaning between those words may, or even must, be examined and taken into account by the competent courts of the Member States, even though Arabic is not an official language of the European Union or of the Member States?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-405/10: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Justice & Environment v Commission (Approximation of laws — Deliberate release into the environment of GMOs — Marketing authorisation procedure — Request for internal review — Annulment of the contested decisions or the decisions concerned — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/19

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Justice & Environment v Commission
   (Case T-405/10) (1)

   ((Approximation of laws - Deliberate release into the environment of GMOs - Marketing authorisation procedure - Request for internal review - Annulment of the contested decisions or the decisions concerned - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2014/C 431/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Association/Vereniging Justice & Environment (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Černý, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Olivier and D. Bianchi, and subsequently by D. Bianchi)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 200l/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11) and of Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 15), and of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 6 July 2010 rejecting the request for an internal review of those decisions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Association/Vereniging Justice & Environment.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-439/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/25

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost)
   (Case T-439/16)
   (2016/C 350/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: holyGhost GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiedemann and S. Engbrink, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘holyGhost’ — Application for registration No 11 757 853

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2016 in Case R 2867/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Joined Cases C-164/15 P and C-165/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Aer Lingus Ltd, Ryanair Designated Activity Company, Ireland (Appeal — State aid — National tax on air transport — Application of differentiated rates — Lower rate for flights to destinations no more than 300 km from the national airport — Advantage — Selective nature — Assessment where the fiscal measure is likely to constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services — Recovery — Excise duty)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Aer Lingus Ltd, Ryanair Designated Activity Company, Ireland
   (Joined Cases C-164/15 P and C-165/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - National tax on air transport - Application of differentiated rates - Lower rate for flights to destinations no more than 300 km from the national airport - Advantage - Selective nature - Assessment where the fiscal measure is likely to constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services - Recovery - Excise duty))
   (2017/C 053/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Aer Lingus Ltd (represented by: K. Bacon and A. Robertson QC, and by D. Bailey, Barrister, instructed by A. Burnside, Solicitor), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros, and E. Vahida, avocat), Ireland (represented by E. Creedon, J. Quaney, and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by E. Regan, Senior Counsel, and B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 5 February 2015, Aer Lingus v Commission (T-473/12, not published, EU:T:2015:78), and Ryanair v Commission (T-500/12, not published, EU:T:2015:73), in so far as they annul Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as that article ordered that the aid be recovered from the beneficiaries in an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeals;

               3.

               Dismisses the actions brought by Aer Lingus Ltd and Ryanair Designated Activity Company for annulment of Decision 2013/199;

               4.

               Orders Aer Lingus Ltd and Ryanair Designated Activity Company to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission both before the General Court of the European Union and in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               5.

               Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-260/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz

text:
7.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 285/1
                                                                        I
                                                                  (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February                         Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February
2000 in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v                                 2000 in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz                                                 Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz
                         (Case C-260/00)                                                             (Case C-261/00)
                         (2000/C 285/01)                                                             (2000/C 285/02)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-                   European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-
richt (Finance Court, Hessen) of 21 February 2000, received at              richt (Finance Court, Hessen) of 21 February 2000, received at
the Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling                the Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion                  in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion
Koblenz (Principal Revenue Office, Koblenz) on the following                Koblenz (Principal Revenue Office, Koblenz) on the following
questions:                                                                  questions:
1.    Does the description ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the              1.    Does the description ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the
      meaning of CN Code No 9021 cover a wrist support,                           meaning of CN Code No 9021 cover a back support,
      called epX Wrist Dynamic, size M/L, made of 1,2 mm-                         called epX Back Basic, size S, manufactured by sewing
      thick three-layer material in a single colour, whereby a                    together and consisting primarily of elastic open-work
      very thin synthetic central layer is enclosed between two                   textile materials up to 1,5 mm thick, approximately
      elastic membranes; tubular in shape and manufactured                        87 cm long and 23 cm wide, closed at the front with a
      by sewing together, with four slightly-curved stabilising                   Velcro fastening and with two additional elastic textile
      stays made of non-rusting material and approximately                        straps on the outside which can be pulled forward,
      12 cm long integrated on each side; approximately 19 cm                     stretched and secured on the Velcro patch, and which has
      long, with an upper diameter of about 11 cm, a lower                        a narrow, sewn-in synthetic baton in the (rear) centre and
      diameter of about 9 cm and a circular opening for the                       a pocket for an insert at the rear?
      thumb?
2.    Does the term ‘solely’, used in Note 1(b) to CN Chapter               2.    Does the term ‘solely’, used in Note 1(b) to CN Chapter
      90 and in Note 2(b) to CN Chapters 61 and 62 allow the                      90 and in Note 2(b) to CN Chapters 61 and 62 allow the
      elasticity of the material to be regarded as the sole                       elasticity of the material to be regarded as the sole
      relevant criterion even if the supporting function of the                   relevant criterion even if the supporting function is at least
      article is at least strengthened not only through being                     strengthened through the article being manufactured, in
      manufactured in accordance with its intended use but                        accordance with its intended use, in such a way as to
      also by other factors (in this case the stabilising stays)?                 work in materials of varying degrees of elasticity?


title: Case C-411/14 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2014 by Romano Pisciotti against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2014 in Case T-403/14 Pisciotti v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Appeal brought on 29 August 2014 by Romano Pisciotti against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2014 in Case T-403/14 Pisciotti v Commission
   (Case C-411/14 P)
   (2015/C 118/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Romano Pisciotti (represented by: M. Maresca, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 28 January 2015, the Court (Second Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Romano Pisciotti to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-401/09 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2009 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Banque centrale européenne BCE

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/14

         Appeal brought on 3 October 2009 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Banque centrale européenne BCE
   (Case C-401/09 P)
   2010/C 11/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Central Bank to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               Order ECB to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the defendant's objection of inadmissibility, submitted together with the defence, should have been declared inadmissible due to the fact that it does not comply with article 114 of the rules of procedure of the CFI which expressly provides that such an objection must be submitted ‘by a separate document’. The appellant also submits that, by accepting the objection of inadmissibility and failing to comment on the appellant's arguments with respect to the objection, the CFI infringed article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
   In the appellant's view the CFI was wrong when it held that European Dynamics, because its bid was unacceptable, had no legal interest in seeking review of the decision of the contracting authority. The appellant also argues that the CFI erred by considering that it was necessary for the appellant to obtain an Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgenehmigung (AÜG) in order to offer its services lawfully.
   Finally the appellant submits that the CFI failed to apply the relevant legal provisions concerning the duty of the contracting authority to provide reasons for its decision.


title: Case T-145/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 November 2005  — Righini v Commission (Officials — Temporary staff — Classification in grade and in step — Classification in the higher career grade)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2005 — Righini v Commission
   (Case T-145/04) (1)

   (Officials - Temporary staff - Classification in grade and in step - Classification in the higher career grade)
   (2006/C 10/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elisabetta Righini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of the Commission's decisions to classify the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7, step 3, whether as a member of the temporary staff or as a probationary official, and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.


title: Case C-506/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2006 — Sabine Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2006 — Sabine Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG
   (Case C-506/06)
   (2007/C 56/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sabine Mayr

      Respondent: Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG
   Question referred
   Is a worker, who undergoes in vitro fertilisation, a ‘pregnant worker’ within the meaning of the first part of Article 2(a) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (1) (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) if, at the time at which she was given notice of termination of employment, the woman's ova had already been fertilised with the sperm cells of her partner and ‘in vitro’ embryos thus existed, but they had not yet been implanted within her?

      (1)  OJ L 348, 1992, p. 1.


title: Case C-269/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/19

         Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-269/07)
   (2007/C 199/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC, Article 7 of Council Regulation No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (1), Article 18 EC and Article 12 EC by introducing and maintaining the provisions for second pillar pensions in Paragraphs 79 to 99 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on Income Tax), in so far as those provisions

                           (a)

                           deny cross-border workers (and their spouses) the right to an allowance, unless they are fully liable to tax;

                           (b)

                           do not permit the capital advanced to be used for an apartment serving as the recipient's own residence in the recipient's own house, unless that house is in Germany;

                           (c)

                           require the repayment of financial support on termination of liability to unlimited taxation;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 2001, Germany introduced the ‘supplementary pension allowance’ which was intended to encourage the building up of second pillar pensions to compensate for the reduction in the level of the state pension. However, that allowance is granted only if the person concerned is fully liable to tax in Germany, which, certainly as far as cross-border workers are concerned (who are liable to be taxed by the State of residence under a double taxation convention, and who do not therefore pay taxes in Germany), deprives them of the benefit of the allowance. In addition, it is possible to use part of the accumulated capital for the purchase of residential property, but only of property that is situated in Germany, not property that is near the border but abroad. Finally, the allowance is repayable if the person concerned ceases to be fully liable to tax.
   In the Commission's opinion, those provisions infringe Community law prohibiting discrimination based on nationality and Community law on the free movement of workers, or rather, on the equal treatment — in terms of social and tax advantages — of workers from other Member States. The prohibition on discrimination against workers from other Member States based on nationality includes not only overt discrimination based on nationality, but also covert forms of discrimination which would in fact produce the same result if other distinguishing criteria were applied. Furthermore, it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that cross-border workers too are entitled to social advantages under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.
   Since the supplementary pension allowance is within the definition of a ‘social advantage’, it should also be granted where cross-border workers and/or their spouses are not subject to taxation in Germany at all, because the advantage attaches to the objective status of the persons concerned as employed persons. The state pension, which is being reduced and the supplementation of which is therefore being promoted, primarily applies to employed persons, although it may apply incidentally to other categories of persons also. Furthermore, ‘social advantage’ also covers advantages which are bestowed upon recipients merely by virtue of the fact that their place of residence is within the country. It is clear therefore that frontier workers are, as a rule, in the same position as resident employees; both categories are affected by falling pension rates in the German system to which they are linked and to which they have paid contributions. Both have an interest in building up an additional pension during their active working lives to counteract falling pension rates. The German legislation, which precludes frontier workers whose income is subject to taxation by the State of residence under a double taxation convention from claiming the advantage, thus amounts to covert discrimination and, accordingly, infringes Article 39(2) EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68. Whether the supplementary pension allowance is categorised as a ‘tax’ or ‘social’ advantage is ultimately unimportant, since cross-border workers are entitled to equal treatment in respect of ‘tax’ advantages too.
   The notion that what is at issue is a social advantage applies equally to the prohibition on spending the capital advanced on an apartment serving as the recipient's own residence in the recipient's own house (unless it is in Germany). Even if it were not a tax advantage, the freedom of movement for workers would still be infringed, since the opportunity to avail oneself of a social advantage is restricted by that requirement. It makes it impossible for cross-border workers to spend the capital saved on an apartment that is situated nearby but abroad, as such employees would normally be expected to do. A typical frontier worker has less flexibility than domestic employees in the use of the allowance when a contractual pension comes to be paid out. The value of that allowance as a social advantage is thereby reduced. Putting frontier workers at a disadvantage in this way also, therefore, represents covert discrimination based on nationality, which is an infringement of Article 39(2) EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.
   The repayment obligation on termination of liability to unlimited taxation that is provided for under German legislation primarily affects foreigners, since the number of foreigners returning to their country of origin after the end of their working lives is much higher than the number of German pensioners moving abroad. Furthermore, the repayment obligation deters those concerned from changing their place of residence to another Member State. Moreover, the legislation at issue here can reduce the value of the allowance for migrant workers from the outset, as against domestic employees, and thus entail covert discrimination at the very point at which the advantage is granted. That applies to those cases in which a migrant worker wishes from the outset to avoid repayment and consequently does not even apply for the allowance. There appears to be no justification for that either. As regards fiscal cohesion, that is already assured by the provisions of double taxation conventions. The repayment obligation on termination of liability to unlimited taxation also therefore represents covert discrimination based on nationality, and consequently infringes Article 39 EC, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 and Articles 12 EC and 18 EC.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition I 1968(II), p. 475.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 June 1995 in Case T-107/94: Christina Kik v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark - Languages - Manifest inadmissibility of the action)

text:
No C 229/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 9 . 95
        Removal from the register of Case C-6/95 ( )                  preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches
                          ( 95/C 229/41 )                             Landessozialgericht ): Aororita Hanßen and Bundesanstalt
                                                                      für Arbeit .
By order of 17 May 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/95 ( reference for a                    H OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 July 1995                                                      of 19 June 1995
     in Case T-36/93 : Girish Ojha v. Commission of the               in Case T-107/94 : Christina Kik v. Council of the
                   European Communities f 1 )                         European' Union and Commission of the European
 (Officials — Posting outside the Community —                                                 Communities (*)
Reassignment to the seat of the Commission — Action for                (Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
   annulment — Compensation for non-material damage)                     — Languages — Manifest inadmissibility of the action)
                           ( 95/C 229/42 )                                                      ( 95/C 229/43 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
 In Case T-36/93 : Girish Ojha , an official of the Commission
 of the European Communities, residing at Korbeek-Lo                  In Case T-107/94 : Christina Kik, lawyer and trade mark
 ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels          agent, represented by Goosen L. Kooy, of The Hague Bar,
 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers
 of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of            of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Therese, v. Council of
 the European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves                     the European Union ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Guus
 Vieira, Joseph Griesmar and Denis Waelbroeck ) —                      Houttuin ) and Commission of the European Communities
 application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the          ( Agent: Pieter Van Nuffel ), supported by Kingdom of Spain
 Commission of 20 October 1992 reassigning the applicant,              ( Agents: Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo
 with effect from 1 November 1992, from the Commission's               Diaz ) — application for the annulment of Article 115 of
 delegation in Dacca ( Bangladesh ), where he had been posted          Council Regulation ( EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 , in
 since August 1991 , to the seat of the Commission in Brussels         that it excludes Dutch as a language of the Office for
 and, second, for an order requiring the Commission to pay             Harmonization in the Internal Market ( trade marks and
 to the applicant the sum of Bfrs 500 000 by way of                    designs ), and for an order prohibiting the adoption of
 compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                    measures enabling the Office to begin its work — the Court
 suffered by him as a result of that decision — the Court of           of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz
 First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz              Vilaça ( President ) and H. Kirschner and V. Tiili, Judges;
 Vilaça , President, and H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,           H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 June 1995 , the
 Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July            operative part of which is as follows:
  1995 , in which it:
                                                                        I. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
  1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                        2 . the applicant is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay
  2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission.
       half of the costs of applicant, who is to bear the other             The intervener is ordered to bear its own costs .
       half.
                                                                        (M OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
  (») OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .


title: Joint Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Social security — Applications to have medical expenses paid at 100 % — Implied and express rejections of the applications)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Joint Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05) (1)

   (Social security - Applications to have medical expenses paid at 100 % - Implied and express rejections of the applications)
   (2008/C 209/77)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A. Distante initially, then G. Cipressa and L. Garofalo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis Kayser and J. Currall, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Inter alia, an application for annulment of two implied decisions of the office responsible for settling claims of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant and an application that the Commission be ordered to pay certain medical expenses for the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case T-463/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Österreichische Post v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/44

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission
   (Case T-463/14)
   2014/C 303/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s implementing decision in Case C(2014) 2093 in so far as Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply to the award of contracts for postal services which are not mentioned in Article 1 of the implementing decision, exemption from which the applicant has requested under Article 30(6) of Directive 2004/17/EC;

               —

               in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment of the contested decision is, according to the Court, not admissible or possible, to annul the implementing decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision, as regards the postal services not covered by Article 1 thereof, is unlawful under Article 263(2) TFEU because the Commission has infringed EU law by misapplying and misinterpreting Directive 2004/17/EC. The applicant claims, in essence, that the postal services which it provides are exposed to sufficient direct competition, so that the conditions for an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17 are met. The applicant also claims that the Commission misapplied the criteria and methods on market definition laid down by EU law and case-law.
   Furthermore, the applicant alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the Commission failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed general fundamental procedural rights, in that by failing to adequately address the applicant’s claims and evidence, it infringed the applicant’s right to be heard.


title: Case C-423/16P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2016 by HX against the judgment delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/18

         Appeal brought on 1 August 2016 by HX against the judgment delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council
   (Case C-423/16P)
   (2016/C 350/23)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded;

               —

               declare that the contested legal act can be partially annulled;

               —

               annul the part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council of the European Union in which HX’s claim was rejected;

               —

               annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), by which the Council extended the validity of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2016, in so far as it concerns HX;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs, expenses and fees etc incurred by the appellant in connection with its legal representation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of EU law: since the decision, in relation to which the claim was rejected, was not personally served on the appellant, although the Council was aware of his address, it is to be accepted that the modification of the claims in connection with those legal acts is admissible and took place within that time-limit.

               2.

               Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of the rules of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the appellant in the following ways:

                           —

                           The absence of a separate written claim does not infringe the rights of the opposing party or render the Court’s work more difficult;

                           —

                           The Court failed to take account of the language of the case, since the Bulgarian version of the Rules of Procedure does not necessarily require a separate document.

                           —

                           Infringement of the adversarial principle set out in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, since the Court did not give the appellant the opportunity to familiarise itself with the decision of the Council itself or with the other language versions of the Rules of Procedure, so as to be in a position to prepare its claim in accordance with the linguistic knowledge and expectations of the Court.

                           —

                           The Court failed to comply with its obligations under Article 86(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which required the provision of a possibility, and where necessary an additional deadline, for the presentation of a copy of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 justifying the modification of the claim.

                           —

                           The Court infringed Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure by failing to fully examine the circumstances of the case in its preliminary report.


title: Case T-116/10: Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Germany v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/41

         Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-116/10)
   2010/C 134/70
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(97) 1120 in respect of the Objective 2 programme Nordrhein-Westfalen (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision the Commission reduced the assistance granted from the ERDF in respect of the Objective 2 programme Nordrhein-Westfalen (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany.
   The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of its action.
   By its first plea in law the applicant submits that the Commission erroneously assessed the factual situation. The applicant takes the view that the Commission included incorrect amounts in the calculation of the margin of error which it took as a basis.
   In the second plea the applicant submits that the conditions for a financial correction in Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) have not been met. The applicant takes the view that that provision does not give the Commission the right to make financial corrections in respect of administrative errors or ostensibly inadequate administrative and control systems. Furthermore, it is submitted that a financial correction in the amount assumed by the Commission is also out of the question for other reasons. First, ‘irregularities’, as complained of by the Commission in the present case, can justify financial corrections only if they have, or have had, a negative effect on the Union budget. According to the applicant, that was not the case as regards the conduct complained of by the Commission. Secondly, the applicant submits that, even on the substance, there is no infringement of Community law as regards a series of the projects complained of.
   By its third plea the applicant submits that the Commission had no right under Regulation No 4253/88 to make flat-rate and extrapolated financial corrections. The applicant submits in that regard that the clear wording of Article 24 of that regulation relates to concrete cases and quantifiable amounts.
   In its last plea the applicant submits that, even if it were to be assumed that flat-rate and extrapolated financial corrections are permitted, they are unlawful in the present case. In that regard it is submitted that the Commission did not explain the ‘system-inherent nature’ of the conduct of which it complained and that the flat-rate financial corrections do not comply with the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 25 April 1995 by Benjamin Laurence Lay against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-107/95)

text:
No C 208/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 8 . 95
The applicants claims that the Court should :                        but on the contrary caused it immediate and severe damage,
                                                                     which is demonstrated moreover by the fact that at the
— adjudicate on this application separately from any other           material time when those activities were being undertaken
    associated application against the same Commission               an appreciable fall in the volume of its exports was recorded .
    Decision,                                                        For those reasons the applicant not only did not adhere to
                                                                     the principle of respect for domestic markets but actively
— annul        Commission       Decision       94/815/EC      of
                                                                     worked against it.
    30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV-33.126 and 33.322 —
    Cement ) to the extent to which it concerns the                  As regards exchanges of information unlawful under
                                                                     Community law alleged against it, the applicant maintains
    applicant,
                                                                     that the information exchanged as referred to in the
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                 Commission's statement of objections was purely of
    applicant under the abovementioned decision,                     statistical interest and was very general in nature; the
                                                                     consideration of that information, rather than information
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                  from other official sources, within Cembureau and other
    including the fees of his appointed lawyers .                    analogous bodies was merely adjudged to be most
                                                                     convenient and economic .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Moreover, the applicant refutes any involvement by it in
In the contested Decision the Commission found that the              concerted practices with a view to sharing markets and
applicant company, Tsimenta Xalkidos AE, in common                   corresponding channelling of exports, and emphasizes that
with other undertakings producing cement, had infringed              it cannot be held liable for activities of other companies
the provisions of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty. That            solely because it participated in the EPC and the ECEC .
infringement consisted in its participation in ( a ) an
agreement whose purpose was to respect domestic markets              On those grounds the applicant considers that the contested
and to regulate transfers of cement from one country to              decision must be annulled on the basis of the infringement of
another, ( b ) in a persistent concerted practice within the         essential formal requirements and the absence of a specific
framework of the European Policy Committee ( EPC ) with              and adequate statement of reasons . Moreover, it maintains
regard to the analysis of the situation both on the                  that the Commission misused its powers given that it used
Community markets and on the markets of non-member                   the powers available to it for the imposition of penalties
countries and the exchange of specific information                   against undertakings operating a cartel in order to include
concerning quantities available for export and actual                within their number an undertaking which it acknowledges
exports to non-member countries with a view to preventing            did not participate in the alleged cartel .
market penetration of competitor undertakings in the
Community in other internal markets of the Community. In             As regards the fine imposed on it, the applicant considers
respect of those infringements the Commission imposed on             that penalty to be completely unjustified given that it is
the applicant a fine in the amount of ECU 1 856 000 .                 based neither on acknowledged and proven factual
The applicant maintains at the outset that, in its statement of      circumstances nor on legal considerations adduced by the
objections the Commission neither refers to nor adduces any           Commission in its Decision . Finally, according to the
concrete action by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE constituting an               applicant, the Commission has infringed the principles of
infringement of the competition rules but instead by                  proportionality and equal treatment inasmuch as the
implication imputes to it the allegations made against the            amount of the fine is disproportionate to the seriousness of
other undertakings involved .                                         the infringements alleged against it and which put it on an
                                                                      equal footing with other Greek companies which are alleged
In support of its assertion, the applicant points out that in         to have committed             certain    particularly    serious
the draft of the contested Decision it was not included               infringements .
amongst the companies on whom it was appropriate to
impose fines and that it was included at the last minute
 notwithstanding the fact that in its view no infringement
was constituted on the basis of the factual circumstances or
the legal assessment.
 With particular regard to its imputed participation in the           Action brought on 25 April 1995 by Benjamin Laurence Lay
 Cembureau agreement, concerning respect for domestic                 against the Council of the European Union and the
 markets, the applicant considers the Commission's                            Commission of the European Communities
 reasoning to be illogical when it attributes responsibility to it
                                                                                ( Case T-107/95 )
 for actions and agreements in respect of which it makes a
 blanket charge against 'Greek producers' or 'European                                         ( 95/C 208/61 )
 cement-manufacturers ', without mentioning any actual
 involvement by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE in those actions and                            (Language of the case: English)
 agreements . The applicant stresses that the activities of
 Cembureau attributed to it , and those of the other bodies
 ( European Task Force, European Cement Export                         An action against the Council of the European Union and
 Committee and others ) not only did not serve its interests,          the Commission of the European Communities was brought
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 8 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/29
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 April 1995 by Benjamin Laurence Lay,               Communities on 25 April 1 995 by Donald George Gage and
represented by Richard Gordon QC and Joanne Keddie,                  David John Gage, represented by Richard Gordon QC and
Solicitor, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn,                 Joanne Keddie, Solicitor, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square,
London WC2A 3RZ, England .                                           Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ, England .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         The applicants claim that the Court should :
— declare that the decision of the Council and/or the
                                                                     — declare that the decision of the Council and/or the
     Commission of 13 February 1995 declining
     non-contractual liability in respect of the application by          Commission of 13 February 1995 declining
     the applicant for measures providing compensation for               non-contractual liability in respect of the application by
     himself, and the group of SLOM 3 producers, is null                 the applicants for measures providing compensation for
     and/or void and of no effect and/or annul the said                  them, and the group of SLOM 3 producers, is null and/or
     decision;                                                           void and of no effect and/or annul the said decision;
— declare that the Council and/or the Commission have                — declare that the Council and/or the Commission have
     failed to implement a Regulation or take such other                 failed to implement a Regulation or take such other
     measures to introduce compensation for the applicant                measures to introduce compensation for the applicants
     and the group of SLOM 3 producers;                                  and the group of SLOM 3 producers;
— order that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the          — order that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the
     defendants .                                                        defendants .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a SLOM 3 dairy producer, complains that no
arrangements have been made by the Community                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
institutions to make available for this category of milk             raised in Case T-107/95 .
producers compensation measures similar to those
introduced for SLOM 1 and 2 producers pursuant to
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 .
According to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 , producers
who were allocated a special reference quantity under
Article 3a, pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 , are
excluded from claiming compensation in relation to their             Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38
allocation of SLOM 3 quota .                                         other applicants against the Council of the European Union
                                                                         and the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant submits that this exclusion of the group of                                   ( Case T-l 12/95 )
SLOM 3 producers represents a serious violation of a                                           95/C 208/63 )
legitimate expectation of compensation for the period from
the end of his non-marketing scheme to the date on which he
received an allocation of SLOM 3 quota . Such a failure to                          (Language of the case: German)
provide for compensation is contrary to the principles of
Community law of respect for property and of
non-discrimination between equivalent producers.                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38 other
                                                                     applicants , of Groven, Federal Republic of Germany . The
                                                                     applicants are represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
                                                                     Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schultze and Dr
Action brought on 25 April 1995 by Donald George Gage                Winfried Flaneklaus , of Münster ( Federal Republic of
and David John Gage against the Council of the European              Germany), whose address for service in Luxembourg is at
Union and the Commission of the European                             the Chambers of Dupong & Associates, 14a Rue des
                          Communities                                Bains .
                       ( Case T-108/95 )
                         ( 95/C 208/62
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
                (Language of the case: English)                      — order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                          applicants in respect of the period between the expiry of
An action against the Council of the European Union and                   the two-month period for acceptance contained in
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    Article 14 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of


title: Case C-525/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 183 — Conditions for the refund of the excess VAT — National legislation deferring the refund of part of the excess VAT pending examination of the taxable person’s annual tax return — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-525/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Conditions for the refund of the excess VAT - National legislation deferring the refund of part of the excess VAT pending examination of the taxable person’s annual tax return - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
   2012/C 379/19
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mednis SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input VAT — National legislation limiting monthly VAT refund — Deferment, until examination of annual tax return, of the refund of the part of overpaid VAT that exceeds 18 % of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out during the tax month in question

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not authorising the tax authority of a Member State to defer, without undertaking a specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation, the refund of part of the excess VAT which has arisen during a one-month tax period, pending the examination by that authority of the taxable person’s annual tax return.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case T-356/02: Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 55/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             8.3.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             sels, represented by C. Tagaras, avocat, against the Commission
                           INSTANCE                                      of the European Communities (agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe
                                                                         and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, seeking the suspension of oper-
                     of 3 December 2002                                  ation of decisions appointing a Deputy Head of Unit of Unit
                                                                         DG FC A.01 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
                                                                         agences’ of that unit, the President of the Court of First Instance
in Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und                    made an order on 13 December 2002 in which it:
Veredlung v Commission of the European Communities
(Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Aid granted to
                                                                         (1) Dismissed the application for interim measures.
the new Länder — Rescue and restructuring aid — Duty to
          recover — Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                         (2) Reserved the costs.
                         (2003/C 55/73)
                  (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und
Veredlung, a company established in Neugersdorf, Germany,
represented by Professor U. Ehricke, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, supported by Freistaat Sachsen, represented by
M. Schütte, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-
V. Kreuschitz, V. di Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for a            Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the
stay of execution of the Commission’s Decision 2002/783/EC               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
of 12 March 2002 on State aid C 62/2001 (ex NN 8/2000)                                           Marks and Designs)
implemented by Germany for Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and
Erba Lautex GmbH in bankruptcy (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 48) and,
in the alternative, an application for staged reimbursement of                                    (Case T-356/02)
the aid in question — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 3 December 2002, in which
he:
                                                                                (2003/C 55/75)
1.   Dismissed the application for interim measures;
2.   Ordered that costs be reserved.                                     (Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was
                                                                                drafted: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE                                      An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                     of 13 December 2002                                 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn
                                                                         GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen (Germany), represented by U. Sander
in Case T-234/02 R: Christos Michael v Commission of                     also a party before the Board of Appeal: KRAFFT, S.A,
                 the European Communities                                Andoain, Spain
(Interim measures — Officials — Appointment decisions —
        Admissibility — Urgency — Lack of urgency)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 55/74)
                                                                         —      partially annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                                of 4 September 2002 inasmuch as the appeal of KRAFFT
                                                                                S.A. was upheld and inasmuch as the applicant’s appeal
                                                                                was not allowed
In Case T-234/02 R, Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-                —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 55/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Grounds of claim:               —     Infringement of Article 43(2)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1) and Rule 22(2) of the
                                                                                implementing Regulation (2);
                                                                                —     Infringementof Article 8(1)(b)
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant                                                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
munity trade mark:
                                                                        (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark         Word mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ for                       Community Trade Mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
concerned:                   goods in Classes 1, 3, 4, 12 and
                                                                             1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                             19 (inter alia, Chemicals used in               Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                             industry, science, photography, as
                             well as in agriculture, horticulture
                             and forestry, Bleaching prep-
                             arations and other substances for
                             laundry use, Industrial oils and
                             greases, Vehicles and Building
                             materials (non metallic)) — Appli-
                             cation No 303909
                                                                        Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter
Owner of the right to        KRAFFT, S.A.                               Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of
the trade mark or sign                                                                     the European Communities
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings                                                                                (Case T-360/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/76)
Trade mark or sign           The Spanish figurative marks
asserted by way of oppo-     ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1, 3,
sition in the opposition     4, 12 and 19 (inter alia, Chemicals
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
proceedings:                 used in industry, science, pho-
                             tography, as well as in agriculture,
                             horticulture and forestry, Bleach-
                             ing preparations and other sub-
                             stances for laundry use, Industrial
                             oils and greases, Vehicles and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             Building materials (non metallic))         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-
                                                                        Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, Wittibreut, Germany,
                                                                        represented by H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of registration as regards         for service in Luxembourg.
sition Division:             Classes 1 and 3 and dismissal of
                             the opposition in so far as it
                             concerned Classes 4, 12 and 19             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      Declare that, in amending the decision of 22 June 2000
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of KRAFFT S.A.’s appeal                 and in its conduct of the complaint procedure R/332/
Appeal:                      with regard to the following                      2002 which followed, the Commission disregarded the
                             goods in the application, ‘candles,               prescribed legal and administrative provisions inasmuch
                             wicks’ in Class 4, ‘Vehicles, appar-              as it announced a change in the decision of 22 June 2000,
                             atus for locomotion by land, air                  carried out no hearing with representation of the parties
                             or water’ in Class 12 and ‘non-                   following an objection by the applicant and the direct
                             metallic transportable buildings;                 beneficiaries of the decision, ignored the formal require-
                             monuments, not of metal’ in                       ments for attachment under German and Belgian law,
                             Class 19 and dismissal of the                     even though these had been notified to it in writing, and
                             applicant’s appeal in respect of                  instead instructed bailiff M to draw up a partition scheme,
                             all goods in the application in                   which it received and, without giving reasons, then failed
                             Classes 1 and 3                                   to carry out;


title: Case T-568/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — M6 v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/40

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — M6 v Commission
   (Case T-568/08)
   (2009/C 55/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Métropole Télévision SA (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: O. Freget and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 July 2008 in Case N 279/2008-France (Capital endowment for France Télévisions);

               —

               require the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure under the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant applies for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008, by which the Commission had held State aid in the form of a capital endowment of EUR 150 million in favour of France Télévisions to be compatible with the common market. The applicant requests in that context the initiation of the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) EC.
   In support of its application, the applicant raises three pleas concerning the lawfulness of the contested decision alleging:

               —

               a breach of the applicant's procedural rights, in so far as the Commission's assessment, and especially that relating to the direct causal link between the announcement of the President of the French Republic of 8 January 2008 concerning the abolition of commercial advertising on the channels of the France Télévisions group and the loss of income suffered by those channels, would create difficulties such as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) EC so that the competitors of the France Télévisions group could set out their position;

               —

               a failure of the Commission to provide adequate information concerning the cause of the loss of advertising revenue and intended use of the capital endowment granted to France Télévisions, in so far as the Commission did not verify with the required neutrality, impartiality and thoroughness the truth and reliability of the information which was communicated to it concerning the real causes of France Télévisions' advertising losses and the final use to which the sums paid by the French Republic to France Télévisions were to be put;

               —

               a failure to state grounds, in so far as the Commission (i) did not sufficiently justify the importance given in the contested decision to the effect of the presidential announcement of 8 January 2008 which referred to the abolition of advertising on the public channels, (ii) failed to take into consideration the influence, on advertising regulation, of the ‘refocusing’ of France Télévisions' activities towards those of a public service and (iii) did not take into consideration the responses of private operators, including the applicant.


title: Case C-164/05: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  8 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/19/EC — General system for the recognition of professional qualifications — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/8

         Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-164/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/19/EC - General system for the recognition of professional qualifications - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications - Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 178/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC concerning the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications, and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Articles 1 to 4 and 9 to 13 of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications, and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC on the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-30/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): William Hinton & Sons Lda v Fazenda Pública, intervener: Ministério Público (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the import duties to be collected — Expiry of the time-limit for taking action for recovery — Article 254 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Obligation incumbent on the Portuguese Republic to proceed, at its own costs, to the elimination of certain stocks of product)

text:
C 84/30                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    Declares that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to            1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
      fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by                   2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and
      Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993 estab-
      lishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive       (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      75/442;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 October 2001
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                   in Case C-30/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): William
                                                                           Hinton & Sons Lda v Fazenda Pública, intervener: Minis-
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            tério Público (1)
                        of 27 November 2001                                (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Post-clearance
                                                                           recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
in Case C-208/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of                      import duties to be collected — Expiry of the time-limit for
                  the European Communities (1)                             taking action for recovery — Article 254 of the Act of
                                                                           Accession of Spain and Portugal — Obligation incumbent
                                                                           on the Portuguese Republic to proceed, at its own costs, to
(EAGGF, Guidance Section — Decision of the Commission                                the elimination of certain stocks of product)
withdrawing financial assistance granted under Article 8
of Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 — Action for partial
annulment against the designation of a Member State as                                                 (2002/C 84/50)
               recipient — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                            (2002/C 84/49)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                          in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                        In Case C-30/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme
                                                                           Administrative Tribunal) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between William Hin-
In Case C-208/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,               ton & Sons Lda and Fazenda Pública, intervener: Ministério
Â. Cortesão de Seiça Neves and P. Fragão) v Commission of               Público — on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of
the European Communities (Agents: A.M. Alves Vieira and                    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
P. Oliver) — application for partial annulment of C(1999)543,              post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
C(1999)544 and C(1999)545 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing                      which have not been required of the person liable for payment
the assistance granted to Belgravia Lda, Floreurop — Productos             on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the
Florestais Lda and Ordinal-Gestão de Investimentos Lda                    obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1), Article 254
respectively under the Guidance Section of the European                    of the 1985 Act concerning the conditions of accession and
Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — the                      the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23), Article 8
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President,                  of Council Regulation (EEC) N3771/85 of 20 December 1985
N. Colneric, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and                 on stocks of agricultural products in Portugal (OJ 1985 L 362,
V. Skouris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                p. 21) and Articles 4 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 November 2001, the                        No 579/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down detailed rules
operative part of which is as follows:                                     relating to stocks of products in the sugar sector in Spain and
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 84/31
Portugal on 1 March 1986 (OJ 1986 57, p. 21) — the Court                             —     the person liable has complied with all of the provisions
(First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President                              laid down by the rules in force as far as concerns the
of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Tizzano,                             declaration of the event to which the collection of the levy
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                                in question relates.
11 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               (1) OJ No C 122 of 29 April 2000.
1.    Article 1(2)(c) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on
      the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
      which have not been required of the person liable for payment
      on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the                                            (Second Chamber)
      obligation to pay such duties must be interpreted as meaning
      that entry in the accounts of the amount originally required of
                                                                                3 December 2001
      the person liable for payment is an official act which precedes
      notification regarding recovery and actual recovery and which
      does not necessarily consist in entry by the customs authority in        in Case C-59/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      the accounts books, or any other medium used in their stead, of          from the Vestre Landsret): Bent Mousten Vestergaard v
      the amount in question.                                                                       Spøttrup Boligselskab (1)
                                                                               (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Public works
                                                                               contracts — Contracts with a value below the threshold
2.    Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 must be interpreted as             values laid down in Directive 93/37/EEC — Clause requiring
      meaning that, where an initial act determining the amount of             the use of a product of a specified make, without any
      levies payable is annulled and replaced by a second act which,           possibility of using a similar product — Free movement of
      without altering the basis for recovery, fixes such levies in an                                          goods)
      amount lower than that which was initially decided, the action
      for recovery must be considered to have been set in motion by                                       (2002/C 84/51)
      the initial act.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
3.    Neither Article 254 of the Act of Accession nor the provisions of                            in the European Court Reports)
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3771/85 of 20 December
      1985 on stocks of agricultural products in Portugal nor of
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/86 of 28 February                     In Case C-59/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      1986 laying down detailed rules relating to stocks of products           by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in
      in the sugar sector in Spain and Portugal preclude the                   the proceedings pending before that court between Bent
      Portuguese Republic from requiring of traders holding surplus            Mousten Vestergaard and Spøttrup Boligselskab, on the
      stocks of sugar which they should have been able to export               interpretation of Articles 6 and 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
      within the period prescribed for that purpose to pay the levy            amendment, Articles 12 EC and 28 EC), the Court (Second
      provided for by Article 7(1) of Regulation No 579/86.                    Chamber) composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
                                                                               R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
                                                                               General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, after informing the
                                                                               referring court of its intention to give its decision by reasoned
4.    The customs authorities of a Member State must refrain from              order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of
      carrying out post-clearance recovery of duties pursuant to               Procedure, after inviting the parties referred to in Article 20 of
      Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 where:                             the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit observations,
                                                                               has made an order on 3 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
      —      the duties have not been collected on account of an error         precludes a contracting authority from including in the contract
             of interpretation or application of the provisions on the         documents for a public works contract which does not exceed the
             levy in question in so far as it is the consequence of acts of    threshold laid down in Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
             the competent authorities, which excludes errors caused by        1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
             incorrect declarations by the person liable                       public works contracts a clause requiring the use in carrying out the
                                                                               contract of a product of a specified make, where that clause does not
                                                                               include the words ‘or equivalent’.
      —      the person liable acting in good faith could not reasonably       (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
             have detected that error, despite his professional experience
             and the diligence shown by him


title: Case C-240/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg, Germany) — Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz v Finanzamt Stuttgart III (Free movement of persons — Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union — Income tax — Taking into account expatriation allowances in calculating a tax rate applicable to other revenue applying a progressive tax scale — Taking into account allowances granted to civil servants of another Member State exercising their functions on national territory — Disregarding allowances granted to national civil servants exercising their functions outside national territory — Comparability)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg, Germany) — Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz v Finanzamt Stuttgart III
   (Case C-240/10) (1)

   (Free movement of persons - Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union - Income tax - Taking into account expatriation allowances in calculating a tax rate applicable to other revenue applying a progressive tax scale - Taking into account allowances granted to civil servants of another Member State exercising their functions on national territory - Disregarding allowances granted to national civil servants exercising their functions outside national territory - Comparability)
   2011/C 319/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz

      Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart III

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Articles 18, 21 and 45 TFEU — National income tax provisions exempting expatriation allowances granted to taxpayers employed by a legal person governed by public law and pertaining to a State-funded salary — Lack of such exemption with regard to allowances paid to taxpayers employed on national territory by a legal person governed by public law of another Member State and pertaining to a salary funded by that other State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 39 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as Paragraph 3(64) of the Law on income tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), according to which allowances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, granted to a civil servant of a Member State working in another Member State in order to compensate for a loss of purchasing power at the place of secondment, are not taken into account in determining the tax rate applicable in the first Member State to the other income of the taxpayer or of his spouse, whereas equivalent allowances granted to a civil servant of that other Member State working on the territory of the first Member State are taken into account for the purposes of determining that tax rate.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-117/11: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 28(2)(a) — Article 28(3)(b) — Exemption of certain transport services — Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport — Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/4

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-117/11) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 28(2)(a) - Article 28(3)(b) - Exemption of certain transport services - Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport - Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply - Principle of fiscal neutrality)
   2012/C 109/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right of the Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage — Maintenance, under national legislation, of an exemption with refund of the tax paid in respect of the supply of certain transport services — Operator supplying, to air travellers, a car parking service together with transport between the car park and the airport — Transaction to be regarded, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or several distinct supplies?

      Operative part of the order

   Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the rate of value added tax applicable, services for the parking of a vehicle in an ‘off-airport’ car park and for the transport of the passengers of that vehicle between that car park and the airport terminal concerned must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as a single complex supply of services in which the parking service is predominant.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.