title: Case C-377/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 3 July 2013 — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 3 July 2013 — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-377/13)
   2013/C 274/13
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A.

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Question referred

   Do Article 4(1)(c) and (2)(a), Article 7(1) and Article 10(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 (as amended by Council Directive 85/303 EEC (2) of 10 June 1985) preclude national legislation, such as Decree-Law No 322-8/2001 of 14 December 2001, which subjected to stamp duty any increases in the capital of capital companies through the conversion into capital of the claims of shareholders in respect of ancillary services provided previously to the company, even if those ancillary services had been provided in cash, bearing in mind that, as at 1 July 1984, national legislation subjected those increases in capital, made in that way, to stamp duty at the rate of 2 %, and that, at the same date, it exempted from stamp duty capital increases made in cash?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
   OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

      (2)  Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

      OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.


title: Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-28/95)

text:
No C 119/12         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13 . 5 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . order the defendants to pay the costs of the
                     of 23 February 1 995                                proceedings.
     in Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v.
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                          ( 95/C 119/29 )                            Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG, established
in Bremen ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe,
Rechtsanwalt of Hamburg and of the Brussels Bar, with an             Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk            Konrad against the Council of the European Union and the
& Prum, 13B Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                            Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: B. Smulders and J.                                            (Casé T-9/95 )
Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of Commission                                    ( 95/C 119/31 )
Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg
via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale                          (Language of the case: German)
of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH
to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court of First Instance               An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët,                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
R. García-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung,             Communities on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
Registrar, made an order on 23 February 1995, the                    Konrad, Löllbach (Federal Republic of Germany),
operative part of which is as follows:                               represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case        Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
      T-490/93, Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v. Commission               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
      of the European Communities, in order to enable the            Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
      Court of Justice to rule on the applications for
     annulment;                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 1 July 1984
(M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                          to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 83 670,155 ,
(2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7. 1993 , p. 43 .                                together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                                                                     2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
Action brought on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler                    Commission and also stay the proceedings.
against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          (Case T-4/95 )
                          ( 95/C 119/30 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                     Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
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 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler,                  Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International
Orsfeld ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the
Matthias H. François, Rechtsanwalt, of François, Neuhaus                     Commission of the European Communities
& Kollegen, Bitburg, with an address for service in                                        (Case T-28/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Annick Wurth, 100                                             ( 95/C 119/32 )
Boulevard de la Pétrusse .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         (Language of the case: English)
 1 . grant the applicant compensation for the period during          An action against the Commission of the European
      which she was required not to market produce;                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95         LJN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/ 13
Instance of the European Communities on 15 February                Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Groupe Origny, a
1995 by the International Express Carriers Conference,             limited liability company succeeding to the rights of the
established at 9 Rue de la Terrassière, CH-1207 Geneva,            limited liability company Cedest, against the Commission of
Switzerland, represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, of the                              the European Communities
Paris Bar, and by Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and Paris                                 ( Case T-38/95 )
Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue                                            ( 95/C 119/33
Guillaume .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
— declare that the Commission's failure to define its              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     position within two months of receipt of the formal           Instance of the European Communities on 17 February
     request contained in the applicant's letter of 23             1995 by Groupe Origny, a limited liability company having
     November 1994 in relation to the aspects of the               its registered office in Paris ( France ) and succeeding to the
     complaint of 13 July 1988 , as supplemented thereafter,       rights of the limited liability company Cedest, represented
     concerning:                                                   by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch,
                                                                   8 Rue Zithe .
    — the application of Article 85 , and
    — the application of Article 86,                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
     is in breach of Article 175 of the Treaty,                    — annul in whole or in part Article 1 , Article 3 ( 3 ) ( a ) and
                                                                        Article     9.20    of     the  Commission   decision     of
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the application              30 November 1994, in so far as those articles concern
     even in the event that the Commission should take action           Cedest,
     which is held by the Court to render the action devoid of
     purpose .
                                                                   — in the alternative, amend Article 9 of the Commission
                                                                        decision so as to set aside or reduce substantially the fine
                                                                        imposed on Cedest,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
The Commission failed to define its position on both aspects
of the applicant's complaint within two months of being
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
requested to do so by the applicant, contrary to the second
paragraph of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty. Since the              The applicant relies on the following pleas in law in support
application was brought within the ensuing two-month               of its action :
period, it must be declared admissible.
                                                                    L Formal and procédural defects:
With regard to Article 85, the alleged disappearance (which
is denied) of the restriction of competition complained of               1 . Failure to attribute the complaints to individual
cannot entitle the Commission to dispense with the                           undertakings.
obligation to define its position. Although, in the context of
the procedure under Regulation No 17, it sent a letter to the            2. Extremely short period for examination of the file,
IECC under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 , the                            which was not only disproportionate in relation to
Commission did not dismiss this aspect of the complaint.                     the duration of the investigation but was also
                                                                             unjustified by reason of the absence of any
With regard to Article 86, a letter stating that the                         urgency .
Commission is pursuing the matter cannot fulfil the
Commission's obligation to define its position. In view of               3 . Failure clearly to identify the documents on the file
the length of time which elapsed between the filing of the                   and to, provide a list of accessible documents .
complaint and the dispatch of the letter calling upon
the Commission to act, the applicant is entitled to obtain               4. Refusal to grant access to all documents on the
from the Commission either a reasoned decision stating that                  file .
an investigation of the complaint was unnecessary or a
provisional notice under Article 6 of Regulation                         5 . Refusal to grant the applicant a separate hearing.
No 99/63 .
                                                                   II. With regard to the practices complained of:
The application must therefore be declared to be
well-founded in regard to the aspects of the complaint                   1 . Lack of evidence : the Commission has failed to
concerning both Article 85 and Article 86 of the EEC
                                                                             establish the applicant's alleged involvement in the
Treaty.
                                                                             two agreements concerned relating to respect for
                                                                             home markets and the regulation of transfers of
                                                                             goods between France and Germany.


title: Case T-271/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Tuula Rajala against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-24/14 Rajala/OHMI

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/32

         Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Tuula Rajala against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-24/14 Rajala/OHMI
   (Case T-271/15 P)
   (2015/C 262/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Tuula Rajala (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-24/14;

               —

               annul the appraisal report issued to the appellant in respect of the period from 1st October 2011 to 31 December 2012;

               —

               order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 500 — to the appellant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the aforesaid appraisal report;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs as regards the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal and in the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted major facts and based the judgment on the distorted facts. The appellant puts forward the following distortions:

                           —

                           distortion concerning the fact that the timeliness was affected by the appellant’s health problems;

                           —

                           distortion concerning the fact that the timeliness was negatively affected by being the only examiner working in Finnish for part of the appraisal period and one of only two Finnish examiners for the remainder of the appraisal period;

                           —

                           distortion concerning the fact that the appellant handled an uncommonly large number of particularly difficult and time consuming cases;

                           —

                           distortion of facts concerning the negative impact that the implementation of the IP Translator judgment had on the quantitative output of the appellant and the timeliness of the appellant’s decisions;

                           —

                           distortion of the facts concerning the timeliness figures of the appellant compared to other examiners.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when stating that a manifest error in the assessment of performance cannot be revealed from the finding that of the seven competencies assessed, five were deemed to be at least consistent with the level required for the position held.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when rejecting the breach by OHIM of its fiduciary duty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when rejecting the breach by OHIM of the legitimate expectations of the appellant.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2002 in Case T-238/00: International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of the European Central Bank (USE) v European Central Bank (European Central Bank — Refusal to amend the conditions of employment and the rules applicable to the staff — Unions — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 180/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 April 2002
                         of 18 April 2002
                                                                            in Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola v European Invest-
                                                                                ment Bank
in Case T-238/00: International and European Public
Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of                      (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a
the European Central Bank (USE) v European Central                                         measure — Urgency — Absence)
                              Bank (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/42)
(European Central Bank — Refusal to amend the conditions                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
of employment and the rules applicable to the staff —
     Unions — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                                                                            In Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola, resident in Rome,
                                                                            represented by L. Isola, lawyer, against European Investment
                                                                            Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —
                          (2002/C 180/41)                                   application for suspension of the operation of the decision of
                                                                            the European Investment Bank dismissing the applicant — the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                   (Language of the case: German)                           29 April 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-238/00: International and European Public Services
Organisation (IPSO), established in Frankfurt am Main, Ger-
many, and the Union of Staff of the European Central Bank
(USE), established in Frankfurt am Main, represented by
Christian Roth, Tanja Raab-Rhein and Michael Roth, Rechtsan-                Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &
wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                   Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in
European Central Bank (Agents: J. M. Fernández Martı́n,                          the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
J. Sánchez Santiago and B. Wägenbaur) — application for
annulment of the decision of the Vice-President of the                                               (Case T-146/02)
European Central Bank of 7 July 2000 refusing to consider the
requests submitted by the applicants seeking the amendment                                           (2002/C 180/43)
of certain provisions of the conditions of employment of the
staff at the European Central Bank and of the rules applicable                                (Language of the case: German)
to the staff of the European Central Bank — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 18 April 2002, the operative part of which is as                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
follows:                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
                                                                            2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
                                                                            Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K.Brandt, A. Franke,
                                                                            U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
                                                                            lawyers.
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred
      by the defendant.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                      Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 724/
                                                                                1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
                                                                                number 573 725, in so far as it relates to goods in
                                                                                Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                                                                                following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;


title: Case T-460/08: Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Commission v Acentro Turismo

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/53

         Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Commission v Acentro Turismo
   (Case T-460/08)
   (2008/C 313/94)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu, A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Acentro Turismo SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               order Acentro Turismo SpA to pay the sum of EUR 13 497,46 by way of capital;

               —

               order that company to pay the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in default interest payable up to the date of lodging of the present application, and default interest which will be payable after the date of lodging of this application up to the date of the actual payment of the capital, to be quantified ultimately on the basis of the interest rate established by Italian law;

               —

               order that company to pay default interest on the aforesaid interest payable up to the date of lodging of the present application, to be quantified ultimately on the basis of the interest rate established by Italian law;

               —

               order that company to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present application the European Commission, as representative of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), asks the Court to order the company incorporated under Italian law, Acentro Turismo SpA, to pay the sum of EUR 13 497,46, plus default interest, owed on the basis of the rules relating to performance laid down by contract No 349-90-04 TL ISP I for the provision of services, concluded in 1990 and intended to give that company the functions of travel agent on the Ispra site.
   The Commission submits in that regard that Acentro did not honour two invoices, issued by the Commission itself on the basis of Article 8 of the contested contract, and that the existence of that credit is sufficiently proven with regard to the content of that contract and the credit in question is therefore irrefutable, liquid and collectable.


title: Case C-361/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2012 — Carratù v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2012 — Carratù v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-361/12)
   2012/C 295/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carmela Carratù

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision of national law which, in giving effect to Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) provides for economic consequences in cases of unlawful suspension of a contract of employment, with a null and void time-limit clause, that are different from and considerably less favourable than those in cases of unlawful suspension of a contract governed by the ordinary civil law with a null and void time-limit clause, contrary to the principle of equivalence?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the law of the European Union that, in its implementation, the effectiveness of a sanction should benefit an employer acting wrongfully, to the detriment of the employee so prejudiced, in such a way that the temporal, and natural, duration of proceedings directly damages the employee to the benefit of the employer and that the effectiveness of reinstatement should be reduced proportionately as proceedings continue, so far as to be almost nullified?

               3.

               In the course of implementing European law as provided for by Article 51 of the Charter of Nice, is it compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR for the temporal, and natural, duration of proceedings to damage directly the employee to the benefit of the employer and for the effectiveness of reinstatement to be reduced proportionately as the proceedings continue, so far as to be almost nullified?

               4.

               Having regard to the explanations contained in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of employment conditions contained in clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC also include the consequences of an unlawful interruption of an employment relationship?

               5.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for in national law for the unlawful interruption of fixed-term employment relationships and those of indefinite duration justifiable under clause 4?

               6.

               Must the general Community law principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, equality of arms in proceedings, effective judicial protection, and the right to an independent tribunal and, more generally, to a fair hearing, guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by Article 1(8) of the Treaty of Lisbon and to which Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union refers) — in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and with Articles 46, 47 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, as implemented by the Treaty of Lisbon — be interpreted as precluding the adoption by the Italian State, after a significant period of time (9 years), of a provision such as Article 32(7) of Law No 183/10 which distorts the consequences of proceedings under way by directly prejudicing the employee to the benefit of the employer and which causes the effectiveness of reinstatement to be reduced proportionately as proceedings continue, so far as to be almost nullified?

               7.

               If the Court of Justice should not recognise the principles set out above as having the value of fundamental principles of European Union law for the purposes of their horizontal and general application and that, therefore, a provision such as Article 32(5) to (7) of Law No 183/10 is incompatible only with the obligations laid down in Directive 1999/70/EC and the Nice Charter, must a company such as the defendant be regarded as a State body for the purposes of the direct, vertical, ascending application of European law, and in particular of clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC and the Charter of Nice?

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 43.

      (2)  OJ L 303, p. 16.

      (3)  OJ L 204, p. 23.


title: Case C-203/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name Betfair ; other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name ‘Betfair’; other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing
   (Case C-203/08)
   (2008/C 197/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name ‘Betfair’

      Other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that, where a closed licensing system is applied in a Member State to the provision of services relating to games of chance, the application of that article precludes the competent authority of that Member State from prohibiting a service provider to whom a licence has already been granted in another Member State to provide those services via the internet from also offering those services via the internet in the first Member State?

               2.

               Is the interpretation which the Court of Justice has given to Article 49 EC, and in particular to the principle of equality and the duty of transparency arising therefrom, in a number of individual cases concerning concessions applicable to the procedure for the granting of a licence to offer services relating to games of chance under a statutorily established single-licence system?

               3.

                           (a).

                           Under a statutorily established single-licence system, can the extension of the licence of the existing licence-holder, without potential applicants being given an opportunity to compete for that licence, be a suitable and proportionate means of meeting the imperative requirements in the general interest which the Court of Justice has recognised as justifying restriction of the freedom to provide services in respect of games of chance? If so, under what conditions?

                           (b).

                           Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 3(a) whether Question 2 is answered in the affirmative or the negative?


title: Case C-361/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function — CN code 84433191 — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp
   (Case C-361/11) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function - CN code 8443 31 91 - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008)
   2013/C 63/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Europe BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of multifunctional printers consisting of the assembled combination of three units (printer, scanner and photocopier) — Classification, prior to 1 January 2007, under subheading 8471 60 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, with resulting exemption from customs duties, by reason of application of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others [2008] ECR I-9489 — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in so far as it classifies under CN code 8443 31 91 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Regulation No 2568/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, multifunctional printers, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function, released for free circulation in April 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-88/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 22 February 2013 — Philippe Gruslin v Citibank Belgium SA

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 22 February 2013 — Philippe Gruslin v Citibank Belgium SA
   (Case C-88/13)
   2013/C 147/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Philippe Gruslin

      Respondent: Citibank Belgium SA

      Question referred

   Is Article 45 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’ also refers to the delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3.


title: Case C-43/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 December 2013  — ŠKO-ENERGO, s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 December 2013 — ŠKO-ENERGO, s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Case C-43/14)
   2014/C 142/11
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ŠKO-ENERGO, s.r.o.

      Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Question referred

   Must Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as preventing the application of provisions of national law which make the allocation free of charge of emission allowances in the relevant period subject to gift tax?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case C-328/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 — SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities ( Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principle non bis in idem )

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 — SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-328/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle non bis in idem)
   (2007/C 140/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Schneider, W. Mölls and H. Gading, Agents,)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in SGL Carbon v Commission (Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03), in which the Court of First Instance partially dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5083 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC — Cartel in the specialty graphite market
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-333/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Josel v EUIPO — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NN — Earlier national word mark NN — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing by elements altering the distinctive character)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Josel v EUIPO — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)
   (Case T-333/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NN - Earlier national word mark NN - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing by elements altering the distinctive character))
   (2017/C 277/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Josel, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented: initially by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, and subsequently by J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented: initially by E. Morée and A. Janssen, and subsequently by A. Janssen, R. Sjoerdsma and C. Jehoram, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2015 (Case R 1531/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Josel and Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-103/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/62

         Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-103/15)
   (2015/C 138/81)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Flabeg Deutschland GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Küper and E.-M. Schwind, Rechtsanwälte)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 25 November 2014 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), file number C(2014) 8786 final, in particular Articles 1, 2, 3(1) and (2), 4 and 5 (determination of the classification as State aid and the incompatibility of the EEG-Act 2012 including its special compensation regime with the common market) and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 7 (order for the immediate partial recovery from the recipients);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law: Conditions of Article 107 TFEU are not met.
               The applicant asserts that the EEG surcharge system and the special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 already lack the classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In the event that a classification of the special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 as State aid in this sense were to be affirmed, this would find its justification in Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU (promotion of the execution of an important project of common European interest or the development of certain economic activities or areas without adversely affecting trading conditions contrary to the common interest) and would therefore not be contrary to State aid law.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Inapplicability of the Environmental and Energy State Aid Guidelines (EEAG) relevant to the adjustment plan
               The applicant asserts that the relevant EEAG with regard to the recovery amount pursuant to Article 3 of the Commission decision at issue, which apply from 1 July 2014, are, in the absence of the classification as State aid of the EEG surcharge system and special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 instruments referred to and in the light of the principle of legality of administrative actions also applicable at EU level, not applicable to those instruments.


title: Case C-551/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-551/16)
   (2017/C 030/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J. Klein Schiphorst

      Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004, (1) having regard to Article 63 and Article 7 of Regulation No 883/2004, the objective and scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and the free movement of persons and workers, be applied in such a way that a request for the extension of the export of an unemployment benefit can in principle be refused unless, in the view of the Uwv [Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen: Management Board of the Employee Insurance Agency], given the particular circumstances of the case, for example, where there is a concrete and demonstrable prospect of work, it would be unreasonable to refuse the extension of the export?
               If not,

               2.

               How should Member States apply the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004?

      (1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case C-141/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 20 March 2012 — Y.S. v Minister voor Immmmigratie, Integratie en Asiel

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 20 March 2012 — Y.S. v Minister voor Immmmigratie, Integratie en Asiel
   (Case C-141/12)
   2012/C 157/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Middelburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Y.S.

      Defendant: Minister voor Immmmigratie, Integratie en Asiel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the data reproduced in the minute concerning the data subject and which relate to the data subject, personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Privacy Directive? (1)

               2.

               Does the legal analysis included in the minute constitute personal data within the meaning of the aforementioned provision?

               3.

               If the Court of Justice confirms that the data described above are personal data, should the processor/government body grant access to those personal data pursuant to Article 12 of the Privacy Directive and Article 8(2) of the EU Charter? (2)

               4.

               In that context, may the data subject rely directly on Article 41(2)(b) of the EU Charter, and if so, must the phrase ‘while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality [in decision-making]’ included therein be interpreted in such a way that the right of access to the minute may be refused on that ground?

               5.

               When the data subject requests access to the minute, should the processor/government body provide a copy of that document in order to do justice to the right of access?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).

      (2)  Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1).


title: Case C-359/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG
   (Case C-359/11)
   2011/C 311/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alexandra Schulz

      Defendant: Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG

      Question referred

   Is Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with point (b) and/or (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law on price variations in natural gas delivery contracts with domestic customers, who are supplied gas within the framework of the general duty to supply (standard-rate customers), satisfies the transparency requirements if, in that provision, the grounds, preconditions and scope of the price variation are not stipulated but customers are assured that gas suppliers will give them sufficient advance notice of any price increases and they have the right to terminate the contract if they are unwilling to accept the amended contractual terms and conditions as communicated?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 176, p. 57.


title: Case C-182/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno and Comune di Varese

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno and Comune di Varese
   (Case C-182/11)
   2011/C 211/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Econord SpA

      Defendants: Comune di Cagno and Comune di Varese

      Interested party: Aspem SpA

      Question referred

   Must the principle that the position of an individual public authority holding shares in a società strumentale [(a company set up to provide certain municipal services)] is immaterial also apply where one of the partner municipalities holds a single share in the società strumentale and the shareholders’ agreements entered into by the partner public authorities are not such as to give the shareholding municipality any effective power of control over the company, with the result that the company shareholding may be regarded merely as formal cover for a contract for the provision of services?


title: Case T-209/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Nikolaos Andrikakis and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/55
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Nikolaos Andrikakis                      The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
and Others against the Commission of the European                          applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                           Communities                                     of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                          (Case T-209/03)                                  (1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                         (2003/C 184/114)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Konstantinos Atha-
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    nassopoulos and Others against the Commission of the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                     European Communities
European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Nikolaos Andri-
kakis, residing in Brussels, and 9 other officials, represented by
G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service                                     (Case T-210/03)
in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/115)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      sion of the European Communities), the procedure for                 European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Konstantinos
      calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in            Athanassopoulos, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), and 4 other
      respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-           officials, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers,
      eration for destinations in the greater Athens area;                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-                  during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
      sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea                     sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts                      calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft                  respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      type seat’ ticket;                                                         eration for the destination of Athens;
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                       or, in the alternative,
      decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                       to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
                                                                                passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        type seat’ ticket;
      costs.
                                                                           —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                                decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                           —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                                                                which is sought, together with legal interest;
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-              —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual                        Commission of the European Communities to pay those
travel expenses to Greece.                                                       costs.


title: Case T-201/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014  — Si.mobil v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Slovenian mobile telephone services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Case being dealt with by the competition authority of a Member State — No EU interest)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014 — Si.mobil v Commission
   (Case T-201/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Slovenian mobile telephone services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Case being dealt with by the competition authority of a Member State - No EU interest))
   (2015/C 056/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: P. Alexiadis and E. Sependa, Solicitors, and subsequently by P. Alexiadis, P. Figueroa Regueiro and A. Melihen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Gencarelli and A. Biolan, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: T. Mihelič Žitko and V. Klemenc, acting as Agents); and Telekom Slovenije d.d. formerly Mobitel, telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sladič and P. Sladič, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 355 final of 24 January 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning infringements of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by Mobitel on a number of wholesale and retail mobile telephone markets (Case COMP/39.707 — Si.mobil/Mobitel).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Telekom Slovenije d.d;

               3)

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case T-267/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/28

         Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission
   (Case T-267/12)
   2012/C 243/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany), Schenker AG (Essen, Germany), Schenker China Ltd (Shanghai, China), Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: F. Montag and B. Kacholdt, lawyers, D. Colgan and T. Morgan, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1(2)(g), 1(3)(a), 1(3)(b) and 1(4)(h) of European Commission’s decision of 28 March 2012 relating to proceedings under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.462 — Freight Forwarding);

               —

               Annul in total or, in the alternative, reduce fines set out in Articles 2(2)(g), 2(3)(a), 2(3)(b) and 2(4)(h) of the contested decision; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence, principles of a fair trial and sound administration by not terminating its investigation upon receipt of notice that evidence submitted by legal representatives on behalf of a certain company was tainted by a series of breaches of law;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission exceeded its competence by adopting the contested decision although it was barred from doing so under Regulation No 141/1962 (1)

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission breached Articles 101(1) and 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 4, 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principles of personal liability and sound administration in holding Schenker China Ltd liable for the conduct of BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd and by fining solely Schenker China Ltd for that conduct although BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd had been a subsidiary belonging to another undertaking headed by a certain company during most of the period of the conduct defined in Article 1(3)(a) of the contested decision;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission breached Articles 23 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, the applicants’ rights of defence, the 2006 Fining Guidelines (2), the principle that the punishment must fit the offence, as well as the principles of sound administration, nulla poena sine culpa and proportionality and it committed a manifest error of assessment in determining the amount of the fines on the basis of turnover exceeding the maximum theoretical amount that could have been generated by the conduct defined in Articles 1(2)(g), 1(3)(a), 1(3)(b) and 1(4)(h) of the contested decision;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission breached Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the Leniency Notice (3), as well as the principle of equal treatment and committed a manifest error of assessment in determining the applicants’ fine reduction rates;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission breached Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the principle of equal treatment and committed a manifest error of assessment by refusing to initiate settlement talks under the Settlement Notice (4).

      (1)  Council Regulation No 141 of 26 November 1962 exempting transport from the application of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 291)

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

      (3)  Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 11)

      (4)  Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ 2008 C 167, p. 1)


title: Case C-253/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) — CLT-UFA SA v Finanzamt Köln-West (Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Tax on company profits)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) — CLT-UFA SA v Finanzamt Köln-West
   (Case C-253/03) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Tax on company profits)
   (2006/C 131/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CLT-UFA SA

      Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-West
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) — National legislation on tax on company profits — Taxation of places of business — Rate of taxation of profits made by branches of foreign capital companies higher than the rate of taxation of profits made by subsidiaries and distributed to foreign parent companies
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude a national law such as the one in dispute in the main proceedings which, in the case of a branch of a company having its seat in another Member State, lays down a tax rate on the profits of that branch which is higher than that on the profits of a subsidiary of such a company where that subsidiary distributes its profits in full to its parent company.

               2.

               It is for the national court to determine the tax rate which must be applied to the profits made by a branch, such as the one in dispute in the main proceedings, by reference to the overall tax rate which would have been applicable if the profits of a subsidiary had been distributed to its parent company.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.08.2003.


title: Case T-366/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BUDWEISER — Earlier international word marks and figurative marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR — Refusal to register — Restriction of the goods covered — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)
   (Case T-366/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BUDWEISER - Earlier international word marks and figurative marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR - Refusal to register - Restriction of the goods covered - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   (2006/C 331/94)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Anheuser-Busch (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, B. Goebel, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Česke Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2005 (Case R 514/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser Busch, Inc.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Anheuser Busch, Inc., shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P and C-180/01 P: International Power plc, British Coal Corporation, PowerGen (UK) plc, Commission of the European Communities v National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) (Appeal — ECSC Treaty — Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and unreasonable royalties — Powers of the Commission)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 275/11
1.   It is contrary to Article 2 of the Eleventh Council Directive              plc, established in London (United Kingdom) (represented by
     89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure                       D. Anderson, QC, and M. Chamberlain, barrister, instructed by
     requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State               S. Ramsay, solicitor), British Coal Corporation, established in
     by certain types of company governed by the law of another                 London (represented by D. Vaughan and D. Lloyd Jones, QC,
     State for national legislation such as the Wet op de Formeel               instructed by C. Mehta, solicitor), PowerGen (UK) plc, formerly
     Buitenlandse Vennootschappen (Law on Formally Foreign                      PowerGen plc, established in London (K.P.E. Lasok, QC,
     Companies) of 17 December 1997 to impose on the branch of                  instructed by P. Lomas, solicitor) and Commission of the
     a company formed in accordance with the laws of another                    European Communities (Agent: A. Whelan, assisted by
     Member State disclosure obligations not provided for by that               J.E. Flynn, barrister): Appeals against the judgment of the Court
     directive.                                                                 of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                                                                                Chamber) of 7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98 NALOO v
2.   It is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC for national                    Commission [2001] ECR II-515, seeking to have that judgment
     legislation such as the Wet op de Formeel Buitenlandse                     set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: National
     Vennootschappen to impose on the exercise of freedom of                    Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO), estab-
     secondary establishment in that State by a company formed in               lished in Newcastle upon Tyne (United Kingdom) represented
     accordance with the law of another Member State certain                    by M. Hoskins, barrister, instructed by A. Dowie, solicitor,
     conditions provided for in domestic company law in respect of              with an address for service in Luxembourg, the Court (Fifth
     company formation relating to minimum capital and directors’               Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
     liability. The reasons for which the company was formed in that            er, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
     other State, and the fact that it carries on its activities exclusively    A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     or almost exclusively in the Member State of establishment, do             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     not deprive it of the right to invoke the freedom of establishment         on 2 October 2003, in which it:
     guaranteed by the Treaty, save where the existence of an abuse
     is established on a case-by-case basis.
                                                                                1.     Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.                                                             7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98 NALOO v Commission in
                                                                                so far as it annuls:
                                                                                —     the part of Decision IV/E-3/NALOO of 27 April 1998
                                                                                in which the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                held that Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty was not
                                                                                applicable to the setting of royalties for coal extraction;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                              —     the part of that decision in which the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities rejected the complaint relating to
                                                                                the level of the royalties charged for coal extraction before
                         of 2 October 2003                                                   1 April 1990.
in Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P
and C-180/01 P: International Power plc, British Coal                           2.     For the rest, dismisses the appeals.
Corporation, PowerGen (UK) plc, Commission of the
European Communities v National Association of
         Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) (1)
                                                                                3.     Dismisses the application of the National Association of
                                                                                Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) in so far as it seeks:
(Appeal — ECSC Treaty — Rejection of a complaint alleging
discriminatory pricing and unreasonable royalties — Powers
                         of the Commission)
                                                                                —     annulment of the part of Decision IV/E-3/NALOO in
                                                                                which the Commission of the European Communities held
                          (2003/C 275/18)
                                                                                that Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty was not applicable to
                                                                                the setting of royalties for coal extraction.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                —     annulment of the part of that decision in which the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities rejected the
In Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P and                                       complaint relating to the level of the royalties charged for
C-180/01 P, International Power plc, formerly National Power                                 coal extraction before 1 April 1990.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
4.   In Case C-172/01 P, orders International Power plc to pay its           marketed in Denmark only if it is shown that such enrichment
     own costs in the proceedings before the Court of Justice                with nutrients meets a need in the Danish population, the
     and those incurred by NALOO in these proceedings. The                   Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Commission of the European Communities is to pay its own                Article 28 EC, the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
     costs.                                                                  President of the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President,
                                                                             M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
5.   In Case C-175/01 P, orders NALOO to pay its own costs in                dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, F. Macken
     the proceedings before the Court of Justice and those incurred by       (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
     British Coal Corporation and the Commission of the European             and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
     Communities in these proceedings.                                       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 Sep-
                                                                             tember 2003, in which it:
6.   In Case C-176/01 P, orders PowerGen (UK) plc to pay its own
     costs in the proceedings before the Court of Justice and those
                                                                             1.    Declares that by applying an administrative practice which
     incurred by NALOO in these proceedings. The Commission of
                                                                                entails that enriched foodstuffs lawfully produced or marketed
     the European Communities is to pay its own costs.                             in other Member States can be marketed in Denmark only if it
                                                                                is shown that such enrichment with nutrients meets a need in
7.   In Case C-180/01 P, orders each party to pay its own costs in                 the Danish population, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to
     the proceedings before the Court of Justice.                                  fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
8.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
     NALOO each to pay their own costs in the proceedings before
     the Court of First Instance. International Power plc, British
     Coal Corporation and PowerGen (UK) plc are each to pay their
                                                                             (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
     own costs as interveners in the proceedings before the Court of
     First Instance.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 23 September 2003                                                            of 11 September 2003
in Case C-192/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-201/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)                                the Oberster Gerichtshof): Maria Walcher v Bundesamt
                                                                                für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28
EC and 30 EC — Prohibition on marketing of foodstuffs to                     (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer —
which vitamins and minerals have been added — Justifi-                       Scope of Directive 80/987/EEC — National case-law on
         cation — Public health — Nutritional need)                          shareholder loans in lieu of capital contributions — Total
                                                                                loss of entitlement)
                         (2003/C 275/19)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/20)
                   (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-192/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. C. Støvlbæk) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:
J. Molde): Application for a declaration that, by applying an                In Case C-201/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
administrative practice which entails that enriched foodstuffs               EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States may be                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2000 in Case C-355/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free movement of workers — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Private security activities — Requirement of prior authorisation — Obligation for legal persons to have their place of business in national territory — Obligation for managers and employees to reside in national territory — Requirement of an identification card issued in accordance with national legislation)

text:
13.5.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 135/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       (a) make the operation of a business falling within that Law
                                                                                subject to the obtaining of prior authorisation which
                                                                                depends on a certain number of conditions, namely that:
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                — a security firm must have a place of business in
                                                                                Belgium;
                         of 9 March 2000
                                                                                — persons who
in Case C-355/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                        — have charge of the actual management of a security
                                                                                firm or internal security service, or who
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free                           — work in or on behalf of such an undertaking or are
movement of workers — Freedom of establishment —                                          employed for the purposes of its activities, with the
Freedom to provide services — Private security activities —                               exception of internal staff working in adminis-
Requirement of prior authorisation — Obligation for legal                                 tration or logistics,
persons to have their place of business in national territory
— Obligation for managers and employees to reside in
national territory — Requirement of an identification card                            must have their permanent residence or, failing that,
        issued in accordance with national legislation)                               their habitual residence in Belgium;
                                                                                — an undertaking established in another Member State
                          (2000/C 135/01)                                             must obtain authorisation, for the purpose of which
                                                                                no account is taken of the evidence and guarantees
                                                                                already presented by it for the pursuit of its activity in
                                                                                the Member State of establishment; and
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (b) require every person wishing to exercise a security activity
                                                                                or provide an internal security service in Belgium to be
                                                                                issued with an identification card in accordance with that
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            Law,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
In Case C-355/98: Commission of the European Communities                     amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court
(Agent: M. Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder)                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
— application for a declaration that, by adopting, within the                President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
framework of the Law of 10 April 1990 on security firms,                     Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann
security systems firms and internal security services, provisions            (Rapporteur) Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
which                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13.5.2000
1. Declares that by adopting, within the framework of the Law of                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    10 April 1990 on security firms, security systems firms and
    internal security services, provisions which
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
    (a) make the operation of a business falling within that Law                                        of 9 March 2000
         subject to the obtaining of prior authorisation which depends
         on a certain number of conditions, namely that:
                                                                             in Case C-358/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
         — a security firm must have a place of business in Belgium;
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation,
         — persons who                                                       rodent-control and sanitation services — Undertakings
                                                                             established in other Member States — Obligation to register)
             — have charge of the actual management of a security
                  firm or internal security service, or who                                             (2000/C 135/02)
             — work in or on behalf of such an undertaking or are
                  employed for the purposes of its activities, with the                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                  exception of internal staff working in administration
                  or logistics,
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
             must have their permanent residence or, failing that,                               in the European Court Reports)
             their habitual residence in Belgium;
                                                                             In Case C-358/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agent:
         — an undertaking established in another Member State                Professor U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for
             must obtain authorisation, for the purpose of which no          a declaration that, by making the provision of cleansing,
             account is taken of the evidence and guarantees already         disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation ser-
             presented by it for the pursuit of its activity in the          vices by operators established in other Member States subject
             Member State of establishment; and                              to registration in the registers referred to in Article 1 of Italian
                                                                             Law No 82 of 25 January 1994, in accordance with Articles 1
                                                                             and 6 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
    (b) require every person wishing to exercise a security activity or      obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
         provide an internal security service in Belgium to be issued        amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
         with an identification card in accordance with that Law,            composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) President of the
                                                                             Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                             on 9 March 2000, in which it:
         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obli-
         gations under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty
         (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and                    1. Declares that, by making the provision of cleansing, disinfection,
         49 EC);                                                                 disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services by operators
                                                                                established in other Member States subject to registration in the
                                                                                registers referred to in Article 1 of Italian Law No 82 of
                                                                                25 January 1994, in accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                               Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                                EC);
                                                                             2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case C-239/04: Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/20

         Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-239/04)
   (2004/C 228/39)
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Van Beek and António Caeiros, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by implementing a project for a motorway, whose route crosses the special protection area (SPA) of Castro Verde, notwithstanding the negative environmental impact assessment and notwithstanding the existence of alternative solutions for the route concerned, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997 (2);

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Portuguese authorities implemented a project for a motorway, whose route (the stretch between Aljustrel and Castro Verde) crosses the special protection area (SPA) of Castro Verde even though:

               —

               the environmental impact assessment of the project in relation to implementation of the plan for the abovementioned stretch of motorway clearly shows that the route concerned does in fact have a very significant negative impact on 17 species of wild birds referred to in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC; and

               —

               there were in fact alternative routes for that stretch of motorway, which were situated both outside the Castro Verde SPA and outside the residential areas in the places mentioned by the Portuguese authorities. Since those alternatives are to be found in a corridor to the west of the Castro Verde SPA between the edge of that area and the ‘IC 1’ road, they are located in flat country with a very low population density, with the result that the Portuguese authorities could have selected one of those alternatives without there being either significant technical difficulties or unreasonable additional costs.

         Consequently, the Portuguese Republic did not comply with Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EC. That provision allows a Member State to carry out a plan or a project in respect of which there has been a negative environmental impact assessment only where there are no alternative solutions.

      (1)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ L 305 of 8.11.1997, p. 42.