title: Case T-33/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark BIGAB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)
   (Case T-33/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark BIGAB - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 89/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peeters Landbouwmachines BV (Etten-Leur, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Claassen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: AS Fors MW (Saue, Estonia) (represented by M. Nielsen and J. Hansen, lawyers), intervener before the General Court

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2010 (Case R 210/2010-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Peeters Landbouwmachines BV and AS Fors MW.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Peeters Landbouwmachines BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-341/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 November 2012 — Evonik Degussa v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Publication of a decision by which the Commission finds an infringement of provisions which prohibit cartels — Refusal of the request for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice — Weighing up of interests — Urgency — Prima facie case)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/49

         Order of the President of the General Court of 16 November 2012 — Evonik Degussa v Commission
   (Case T-341/12 R)
   (Interim measures - Competition - Publication of a decision by which the Commission finds an infringement of provisions which prohibit cartels - Refusal of the request for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice - Weighing up of interests - Urgency - Prima facie case)
   2013/C 26/100
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, M. Holm-Hadulla and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, M. Kellerbauer and G. Meessen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment made by the applicant (Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and an application for interim measures seeking to maintain the confidential treatment granted to certain information concerning the applicant on the publication of a more detailed version of Commission Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/C.38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 54).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment brought by Evonik Degussa GmbH, pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings is suspended.

               2.

               The Commission is ordered to refrain from publishing on its website or any other place or to make available to third parties a version of its Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB, Eka Chemicals AB, Degussa AG, Edison SpA, FMC Corporation, FMC Foret S.A., Kemira OYJ, L’Air Liquide SA, Chemoxal SA, Snia SpA, Caffaro Srl, Solvay SA/NV, Solvay Solexis SpA, Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA and Arkema SA (Case COMP/F/C.38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate), which is more complete, in relation to the applicant, than that published in September 2007 on the Commission’s Competition Directorate General website.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-257/03: Action brought on 15 July 2003 by Internet Photonics, Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
4.10.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 239/21
Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the
applicants, the seizure and handling of these documents
                                                                            —     decide that the mark ‘INTERNET PHOTONICS’ is eligible
violate the general principle of legal professional privilege as
                                                                                for registration as a community trade mark since it does
recognized under European Community Law.
                                                                                comply with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1);
In Commission Decision C(2003)1533 regarding a claim of
legal privilege in the context of an investigation pursuant to              —     annul the decision dated the 13th May 2003 by the
Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 in Case No COMP/                        Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
E-1/38.589 the Commission firstly rejected the applicants’                        in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concern-
request to return or destroy all copies of the documents in                       ing case Number R 765/2002-2;
dispute and secondly, indicated it will proceed to join all
documents in dispute to the Commission’s file.
                                                                            —     allow the application for the mark to be remitted to the
                                                                                Examination Division of the Office for further consider-
                                                                                ation of eligibility for registration under Article 7(1)(c)
With the present application, the applicants seek the review of                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ( 1) having regard to the
the legality and the annulment of this Decision. The applicants                   distinctive character of the mark as a whole, or alterna-
submit that the Commission has committed an infringement                          tively to remit the application for the mark for a decision
of the Treaty and of general principles of Community law and                      by a Board of Appeal of the Office as to whether the
has violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the Courts of                     mark is eligible for registration as a community trade
Justice of the European Communities.                                              mark under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1) on the original appeal from the examiner.
The applicants contend that the Commission has violated the
principle of legal professional privilege by violating the                  —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
procedures relating to the application of this principle as set                   to pay the costs.
out by case law, by its unjustified denial of legal professional
privilege and by violating the applicants’ fundamental rights
(such as the right to privacy) which form the basis of the
aforementioned principle.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) The applicants have lodged an application for the annulment of
     Commission Decision C(2003) 559/4 in as far as it has been             The trade mark con-            The word mark ‘INTERNET PHO-
     interpreted as legitimating the Commission’s action of seizing,        cerned:                        TONICS’          —        application
     reviewing and reading of documents allegedly covered by legal                                         No 002275600
     professional privilege (Case T-125/03, OJ [2003] C 146 of
     21.6.2003, p. 42).
                                                                            Goods or service con-          Goods and services in Classes 9,
                                                                            cerned:                        37, 42 (computer software and
                                                                                hardware etc.)
                                                                            Decision          contested    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                            before the Board of            examiner
                                                                            Appeal:
Action brought on 15 July 2003 by Internet Photonics,
Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                          Appeal:
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              —      misapplication              of
                           (Case T-257/03)                                                                        Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                           (2003/C 239/40)
                                                                                —      misapplication              of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                                                                            (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 July 2003 by Internet Photonics,
Inc., New Jersey, USA, represented by M. Chapple, Barrister.


title: Case C-560/10 P: Order of the Court of 13 October 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Public service contracts — Management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal — Rejection of the tender — Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and No 2342/2002 — Full copy of the evaluation report — Principles of transparency and equal treatment — Rights to good administration and to a fair hearing — Errors of law — Distortion of the evidence — Clear inadmissibility — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/9

         Order of the Court of 13 October 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-560/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service contracts - Management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal - Rejection of the tender - Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and No 2342/2002 - Full copy of the evaluation report - Principles of transparency and equal treatment - Rights to good administration and to a fair hearing - Errors of law - Distortion of the evidence - Clear inadmissibility - Clearly unfounded ground of appeal)
   2012/C 73/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-300/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission annulling the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal and awarding that contract to another tenderer

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-288/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 June 2008 — Kemikalieinspektionen v Nordiska Dental AB

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 June 2008 — Kemikalieinspektionen v Nordiska Dental AB
   (Case C-288/08)
   (2008/C 209/57)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Svea Hovrätt — Miljööverdomstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kemikalieinspektionen

      Defendant: Nordiska Dental AB
   Questions referred

               1

                           (a)

                           Are the provisions of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1) to be interpreted as constituting obstacles to the application of a national prohibition on commercial exports from the country in question of amalgam containing mercury for dental use which is based on considerations of environmental and health protection?

                           (b)

                           Does the fact that the product concerned bears the CE marking have any bearing on that interpretation?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is negative, are Paragraphs 8 and 11 of Swedish Ordinance (1998:944) on, inter alia, prohibition in certain cases in connection with the trade in, and importation and exportation of chemical products, which are based on the considerations stated above, compatible with Articles 29 EC and 30 EC in the case where those provisions are applied to amalgam containing mercury for dental use which bears the CE marking?

      (1)  OJ L 169, p. 1.


title: Case F-134/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Loescher v Council

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/36

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Loescher v Council
      (Case F-134/12) (1)

      (2014/C 71/73)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 74.


title: Case F-50/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2014  — A v Commission (Civil Service — Social security — Accident or occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Permanent partial invalidity — Application for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — A v Commission
   (Case F-50/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Social security - Accident or occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Permanent partial invalidity - Application for compensation - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 194/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: A (represented by: B. Cambier and A. Paternostre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Joris, acting as Agent, and C. Mélotte, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision ruling on the application for additional compensation, made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, in order to obtain full reparation for the material and non-material losses which he suffered following his occupational disease and the numerous irregularities which occurred in the examination of his application based on Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 63.


title: Case T-611/15: Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/65

         Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission
   (Case T-611/15)
   (2016/C 027/83)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: E. Wagner and H. Hoffmeyer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul entirely or, in the alternative, partially, the Commission Decision of 3 September 2015 in Case 2015/4023 by which the applicant’s access to the non-confidential version of the Commission Decision of 4 December 2013 in the cartel proceedings AT/39914 — EIRD and to the enumerative list of the Commission’s file relating to those proceedings was entirely refused, in so far as the Commission refused to grant access to the part of the non-confidential version of the decision or enumerative list whose confidentiality was not claimed by the undertaking affected by the decision, or was no longer claimed;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the Commission Decision of 3 September 2015 in Case 2015/4023 by which the applicant’s access to the non-confidential version of the Commission Decision of 4 December 2013 in the cartel proceedings AT/39914 — EIRD and to the enumerative list of the Commission’s file relating to those proceedings was entirely refused, is not annulled on the ground and to the extent that the non-confidential version of the Commission Decision of 4 December 2013 in the cartel proceedings AT/39914 — EIRD and/or the non-confidential version of the enumerative list of the Commission’s file relating to those proceedings does not exist, declare that the Commission unlawfully failed to issue and produce to the applicant a non-confidential version of the Commission Decision of 4 December 2013 in the cartel proceedings AT/39914 — EIRD and/or a non-confidential version of the enumerative list of the Commission’s file relating to those proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to effective legal protection and the fundamental rights to good administration and the provision of reasons due to a failure to provide reasons for the contested decision

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to effective legal protection and the right to be notified about legal remedies as a result of the failure to notify about possible legal remedies

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 4(3)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 4(3)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right of access to documents

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right of access to documents and the principle of proportionality as a result of the failure to ensure at least partial access to the file as was requested

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 101 TFEU as a result of the practical preclusion of the applicant’s right to have its claim for competition law damages examined and, where appropriate, upheld

               10.

               Tenth plea in law in the alternative, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to bed provided with a non-confidential version of the Commission decision in the cartel proceedings AT/39914 — EIRD and the enumerative list of the Commission’s file relating to those proceedings (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Art. 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)

         In that regard, the applicant claims that the conditions for the exemptions in Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which could justify a failure to reveal the contents of documents applied for by the applicant, are not satisfied.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-583/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2015 — Giand v OHIM — Flamagas (FLAMINAIRE) (Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FLAMINAIRE — Earlier national and international word marks FLAMINAIRE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Ne bis in idem)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2015 — Giand v OHIM — Flamagas (FLAMINAIRE)
   (Case T-583/14) (1)

   ((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FLAMINAIRE - Earlier national and international word marks FLAMINAIRE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Ne bis in idem))
   (2016/C 027/62)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Giand Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Flamagas, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2117/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Flamagas, SA and Giand Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Giand Srl to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Flamagas, SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-147/89: Société Métallurgique de Normandie v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
3 . 6 . 95          | EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/19
3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining                Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     claims;                                                          Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue
                                                                      Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European
4 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay                 Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
     one-third of the Commission 's costs;                            Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the
                                                                      annulment      of  Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
5 . orders the Commission to bear two-thirds of its
     costs .
                                                                      2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                      the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                     260, p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                                                                      composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                      Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
                                                                      H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
                                                                      which the Court:
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      I. annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC
                        ( First Chamber )                                  of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under
                        of 6 April 1995                                    Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel
in Case T-147/89: Société Métallurgique de Normandie                       mesh) as regards the finding therein that there was an
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                     agreement between the applicant and Baustahlgewebe
                                                                           GmbH to subject their future exports to quotas;
(Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
                               Treaty)                                2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
                          ( 95/C 137/45 )                                  by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 1 235 000;
                (Language of the Case: French)                        3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                           claims;
In Case T-147/89 : Societe Metallurgique de Normandie,
established in Mondeville ( France ), represented by Robert           4 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
Collin and Richard Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an                     four-fifths ot the Commission 's costs;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  5 . orders the Commission to bear one-fifth of its costs.
Ernest Arendt, 8—1 0 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
Currall, A. Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for
the annulment of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
the EEC Treaty ( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989
L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,                                     (First Chamber )
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
which the Court :                                                                             of 6 April 1995
                                                                      in Case T-149/89 : Sotralentz SA v. Commission of the
I. dismisses the application;                                                           European Communities (*)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                            (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
                                                                                Treaty)
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                                               ( 95/C 137/47 )
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-149/89 : Sotralentz SA, established in Drulingen
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      ( France ), represented by Xavier de Mello, Philippe Pepy and
                        ( First Chamber )                             Jean Christian Percerou, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                        of 6 April 1995                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bruno Decker,
in Case T-148/89 : Trefilunion SA v. Commission of the                16 Avenue Marie-Therese, v. Commission of the European
                  European Communities i 1 )                          Communities (Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
                                                                      Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the
(Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                      annulment      of  Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
                               Treaty)                                2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                          ( 95 /C 137/46 )                            the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
                                                                      260 , p. 1 .) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                (Language of the Case: French)                        composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                      Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
In Case T-148/89 : Trefilunion SA, established in Puteaux             H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
( France ), represented by Robert Collin and Richard                  which the Court:


title: Case C-553/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 12 December 2007 — College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 12 December 2007 — College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer
   (Case C-553/07)
   (2008/C 64/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam

      Respondent: M.E.E. Rijkeboer
   Question referred
   Is the restriction, provided for in the Netherlands Law on local-authority personal records, on the communication of data to one year prior to the relevant request compatible with Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) 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, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) of that directive and the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-308/99 (1)

   (2004/C 228/101)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 24 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-308/99, H. Peeters Service B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-45/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2009 — Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2009 — Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-45/09)
   2009/C 102/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gisela Rosenbladt

      Defendant: Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Following the entry into force of the German General law on equal treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz; ‘the AGG’) are the rules under collective law, which discriminate based on age, compatible with the prohibition of age discrimination in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, without the AGG expressly permitting this (as was previously the case in Paragraph 10 Sentence 3 Point 7 of the AGG)?

               2.

               Does a national rule that permits the state, the parties to a collective agreement and the parties to an individual employment contract to specify the automatic termination of an employment relationship upon reaching a specific fixed age (in this case: reaching the age of 65), contravene the prohibition of age discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation if, according to established practice in place for several decades in the Member State, clauses of this type have consistently applied to the employment relationships of nearly all workers, irrespective of the prevailing economic, social and demographic state of affairs and the actual labour market situation?

               3.

               Does a collective agreement that permits an employer to end an employment relationship at a specific fixed age (in this case: reaching the age of 65), contravene the prohibition of age discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation if, according to established practice in place for several decades in the Member State, clauses of this type have consistently applied to the employment relationships of nearly all workers, irrespective of the prevailing economic, social and demographic state of affairs and the actual labour market situation?

               4.

               Does a state that declares a collective agreement permitting employers to end employment relationships at a specific fixed age (in this case: reaching the age of 65) to be generally applicable and upholds this extension contravene the prohibition of age discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, if this is effected irrespective of the prevailing economic, social and demographic state of affairs and irrespective of the actual labour market situation?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-341/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/29

         Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-341/14)
   2014/C 261/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergiy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine; and

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law of which six are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-340/14, Klyuyev v Council.
   Furthermore, the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for including the applicant on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures, namely that the person has been identified as responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, as the only reason given for the listing of the applicant is that he is said to be subject to investigation in Ukraine for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine.


title: Joined Cases C-180/10 and C-181/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Republic of Poland) — Jarosław Słaby v Minister Finansów (Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Meaning of taxable person — Sale of building land — Articles 9, 12 and 16 — No deduction of input VAT)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Republic of Poland) — Jarosław Słaby v Minister Finansów
   (Joined Cases C-180/10 and C-181/10) (1)

   (Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Meaning of taxable person - Sale of building land - Articles 9, 12 and 16 - No deduction of input VAT)
   2011/C 319/12
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jarosław Słaby

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Sale of several plots of building land — Whether the seller is a taxable person if the land forms part of the seller's agricultural activity and he ceases that activity following the reclassification of his land by the municipality as building land

      Operative part of the judgment

   The supply of land designated for development must be regarded as subject to value added tax under the national legislation of a Member State if that State has availed itself of the option provided for by Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2006/138/EC of 19 December 2006, irrespective of whether the transaction is carried out on a continuing basis or whether the person who effected the supply carries out an activity of a producer, a trader or a person supplying services, to the extent that that transaction does not constitute the mere exercise of the right of ownership by its holder.
   A natural person who carried out an agricultural activity on land that was reclassified, following a change to urban management plans which occurred for reasons beyond his control, as land designated for development must not be regarded as a taxable person for value added tax for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, when he begins to sell that land if those sales fall within the scope of the management of the private property of that person.
   If, on the other hand, that person takes active steps, for the purpose of concluding those sales, to market property by mobilising resources similar to those deployed by a producer, a trader or a person supplying services within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, that person must be regarded as carrying out an ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of that article and must, therefore, be regarded as a taxable person for value added tax.
   The fact that that person is a ‘flat-rate farmer’ within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, is irrelevant in this respect.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloßstraße GbR v. Finanzamt Paderborn (Case C-396/98) (1999/C 1/11)

text:
C 1/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
employed in that State for at least three years; however, it       on 1 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
is not required that the parent in question should still           Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal
work or be resident in the Member State in question at the         Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
time when his child wishes to gain access to the                   servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
employment market there.                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 30 October                failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,
1998 in the case of 1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
2. R. Van Dijk, trading as Assco Holland Steigers Plettac              order to comply with Commission Directive 95/12/EC
Nederland, against 1. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and                     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive
                         2. Layher BV                                  92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of
                                                                       household washing machines (1), the Kingdom of
                      (Case C-392/98)
                                                                       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                        (1999/C 1/09)                                  directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
30 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
5 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and 2. R. Van Dijk, trading as               Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and the first
Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland, against 1.               paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and 2. Layher BV on the                   are required to adopt the necessary measures in order to
following questions:                                               implement directives addressed to them prior to the expiry
                                                                   of the time-limit prescribed for doing so. The time-limit in
1. Does the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to                question expired on 1 March 1996 but the Kingdom of
    interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement also               Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
    extend to the provisions of that article which do not
    concern provisional measures to prevent infringement           (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
    of trade-mark rights?
2. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
    Article 50(6), have direct effect?
3. Where an action lies under national civil law against           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    the copying of an industrial design, on the basis of the       Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of
    general rules concerning wrongful acts, and in                 that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of
    particular those relating to unlawful competition, must        Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
    the protection thus afforded to the holder of the right                                   Paderborn
    be regarded as an intellectual property right' within
    the meaning of Article 50(1) of the TRIPs Agreement?                                  (Case C-396/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/11)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                   the European Communities by an order of the
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                            Belgium                                6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
                      (Case C-394/98)
                                                                   Paderborn on the following questions:
                        (1999/C 1/10)
                                                                   According to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               C-37/95 (1) Ghent Coal Terminal NV, in which reference is
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            made to Case C-110/94 (2) INZO), a taxable person can
 ---pagebreak--- 4.1.1999              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/7
retain the right to deduct tax charged on goods and                    and, in particular, with Articles 6, 52, 58 and/or
services where, by reason of circumstances beyond his                  73(b) of the EC Treaty for the legislation of a
control, he has not made use of those goods and services               Member State to permit a group income election
for the purpose of carrying out taxable transactions.                  (allowing distributions to be paid by a subsidiary
                                                                       to its parent without accounting for advance
                                                                       corporation tax (ACT')) only where both the
                                                                       subsidiary and parent are resident in that Member
According to that principle, does a taxable person also                State?
retain the right to deduct tax if he does in fact use the
goods or services to carry out (leasing) transactions but,
following a change in the law, is no longer entitled, after
acquiring the goods or services, to opt to waive the tax           2.  If the answer to Question 1 is No', do the
exemption for the transactions carried out with them, and              above-mentioned provisions of the EC Treaty give
so cannot in fact carry out any taxable transactions?                  rise to a restitutionary right to a resident subsidiary
                                                                       of a parent company resident in another Member
                                                                       State and/or the said parent to claim a sum of money
                                                                       by way of interest on the ACT which the subsidiary
In such a case, where there is a subsequent change in                  paid on the basis that the national laws did not allow
circumstances, does the right to deduct tax also continue              it to make a group income election, or can such a
to exist if, under national law, the tax assessments were              sum only be claimed, if at all, by way of an action
allowed to be subject to a subsequent review, enabling a               for damages pursuant to the principles laid down by
quick tax assessment to be made solely on the basis of                 the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-46/93 and
information supplied by the taxable person, but giving the             C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Federal Republic
revenue authority the right to correct the tax assessment              of Germany and R v. Secretary of State of Transport
in every respect on the basis of factual and legal                     Ex Parte Factortame and Others [1996] ECR I-1029
considerations?                                                        and R v. Secretary of State for Social Security ex
                                                                       parte Eunice Sutton (2) [1997] ECR I-2163 and in
                                                                       either case is the national court obliged to grant a
(1) [1998] ECR I-17.
(2) [1996] ECR I-857.                                                  remedy even if under national law interest cannot be
                                                                       awarded (whether directly or by way of restitution or
                                                                       damages) on principal sums which are no longer
                                                                       owing to the plaintiff?
                                                                   3.  In the circumstances set out in the Order for
                                                                       Reference is it consistent with the above mentioned
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the High
                                                                       provisions of the EC Treaty for the authorities of one
Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division,
                                                                       Member State to deny any tax credit to a company
by order of that court of 2 October 1998 in the cases of
                                                                       resident in another Member State when it grants such
1. Metallgesellschaft Limited, 2. Metallgesellschaft AG
                                                                       credits to resident companies and to companies
and Metallgesellschaft Handel & Beteiligungen AG, 3. The
                                                                       resident in certain other Member States by virtue of
Metal and Commodity Company Limited individually
                                                                       the terms of its double taxation conventions with
against Commissioners of Inland Revenue and H. M.
                                                                       those other Member States?
                       Attorney General
                       (Case C-397/98)
                        (1999/C 1/12)                              4.  If the answer to Question 3 above is No', and was
                                                                       the first Member State at all material times obliged to
                                                                       make a tax credit available to such company on the
                                                                       same terms as to resident companies or as to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 companies resident in Member States with provision
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                  for such credits in their double taxation conventions?
Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, of
2 October 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases
of 1. Metallgesellschaft Limited, 2. Metallgesellschaft AG         5.  Is a Member State entitled to plead in answer to such
and Metallgesellschaft Handel & Beteiligungen AG, 3.                   a claim for restitution, tax credit or damages, that the
The Metal and Commodity Company Limited individually                   Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, or that the
against Commissioners of Inland Revenue and H. M.                      Plaintiffs' claim should be reduced, on the grounds
Attorney General, on the following questions:                          that, despite the terms of the national statute which
                                                                       prevented them from doing so as a matter of national
                                                                       law they ought to have made a group income
                                                                       election, or claimed a tax credit and to have appealed
1.    In the circumstances set out in the Order for                    to the Commissioners and, if necessary, the Courts
      Reference (1), is it consistent with Community law               against the decision of the Inspector of Taxes refusing


title: Case T-405/03: Action brought on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.2.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 35/17
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Georgios                             Action brought on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria
Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European                          Sison against the Council of the European Union
                           Communities
                                                                                (Case T-405/03)
                         (Case T-402/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/28)
                          (2004/C 35/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Communities on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria Sison,
European Communities on 11 December 2003 by Georgios                       Utrecht, (Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte,
Katalagarianakis, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by           H. Schultz and D. Gurses, lawyers.
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     join the present case to the joined cases T-110/03 and
                                                                                T-150/03
—     annul the contested decision inasmuch as it fixes the
      classification at recruitment of the applicant at the first          —     annul, on the bases of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
      step of Grade A 6, reviews and fixes 1 April 2000 as the                   of 2 October 2003 (36/C/02/03): Reply adopted by
      date for his classification in Grade A 5 and restricts the                 the council on 2 October 2003 to the confirmatory
      pecuniary effects of its decision to 5 October 1995;                       application by Mr Jan Fermon (2/03) made to the Council
                                                                                by telefax on 5 Septemer 2003 registered by the General
                                                                                Secretariat of the Council on 8 September 2003, pursuant
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for
                                                                                access to documents
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs
Pleas in law and main arguments
Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases                   Pleas in law and main arguments
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered,
pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, the classifi-
cation of officials who had appealed in terms of Article 91 of             The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
the Staff Regulations. Following that procedure, the Com-                  Cases T-47/03 (1), T-110/03 (2) and T-150/03 (3) Sison/Council
mission took the contested decision concerning the applicant.              of the European Union, pursues the annulment of the defend-
                                                                           ants Decision not to allow him access to all documents
                                                                           that were the basis of the Council Decision 2003/480/EC,
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first of all,        implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001
infringement of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch               on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
as the remuneration carried by that grade is payable by the                and entities with a view to combatting terrorism and repealing
mere fact of appointment and that that right may not be                    Decision 2002/974/CE (4).
waived. The applicant alleges, next, infringement of
Article 233(1) of the EC Treaty in that the Commission did not
take all the necessary measures to implement the judgments of              The grounds and main arguments are similar to those submit-
the Court of Justice of 11 January 2001 in C-389/98 P and                  ted in the abovementioned Cases, T-110/03 and T-150/03.
C-459/98 P. The applicant claims, furthermore, that the
defendant infringed Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations and
is in breach of the principle of equal treatment. Finally, the             (1 ) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 41.
applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(3) and Article 45 of           (2 ) OJ C 146, 21.6.2003, p. 39.
the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle that officials           (3 ) OJ C 213, 6.9.2003, p. 36.
should have reasonable career prospects.                                   (4 ) OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 81.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 118, 18.5.2002

text:
1.6.2002        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                        C 131/27
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 131/50)
           Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 109, 4.5.2002
         OJ C 97, 20.4.2002
         OJ C 84, 6.4.2002
         OJ C 68, 16.3.2002
         OJ C 56, 2.3.2002
         OJ C 44, 16.2.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-74/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 February 2013 — GSV Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 February 2013 — GSV Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-74/13)
   2013/C 164/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GSV Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can it be considered that a material

                           —

                           which is white,

                           —

                           has a rectangular shape,

                           —

                           consists of a woven fabric,

                           —

                           is made with a weave of twisted thread,

                           —

                           whose wefts are composed of two threads which,

                           —

                           crossing each other, surround the warps,

                           —

                           whose openings are 4 × 4 mm,

                           —

                           measures up to 100 cm × 201 cm,

                           —

                           is made of glass fibres which possess a styrene acrylic copolymer plastic coating,

                           —

                           is not made from rovings,

                           —

                           weighs 136 g/m2,

                           —

                           with a warp density of 415 tex,

                           —

                           and a weft density of 132 tex,

                     complies with the material characteristics set out in recital 14 of the preamble and in Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 (1) of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, which consist of

                           —

                           open mesh fabrics

                           —

                           of glass fibres,

                           —

                           of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width,

                           —

                           and weighing more than 35 g/m2,

                     and, consequently, that TARIC code 7019590010 must be interpreted so that the material described above is included as such in that TARIC code, taking into account also the tariff classification and the various linguistic versions of Community law?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can payment of the anti-dumping duty be waived, on the basis of the Community legal order, for a legal or physical person who, trusting in the wording of the Regulation published in the language corresponding to its nationality — without ascertaining potentially different meanings in other language versions — on the basis of the general and well-known understanding of the legislation in that person’s language, imports into the territory of the European Union a product manufactured outside that territory, taking into account that, according to the language version that the person knows, that product is not included in the list of goods subject to anti-dumping duty, even if it may be determined, on the basis of a comparison of the different language versions of the rule of Community law, that Community law does make the product subject to anti-dumping duty?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 43, p. 9).


title: Case C-150/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/37/EC — Registration documents for vehicles — Vehicles previously registered in another Member State — Change of ownership — Requirement of a roadworthiness test — Requirement of production of a certificate of conformity — Roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State — Non-recognition — Lack of justification)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-150/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/37/EC - Registration documents for vehicles - Vehicles previously registered in another Member State - Change of ownership - Requirement of a roadworthiness test - Requirement of production of a certificate of conformity - Roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State - Non-recognition - Lack of justification)
   2012/C 355/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by F. Libert and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 34 TFEU and of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) — National legislation requiring the production of a certificate of conformity of a vehicle for the purpose of a roadworthiness test prior to the registration of a vehicle which was previously registered in another Member State — Non-recognition of the results of the roadworthiness tests carried out in other Member States — Restriction on the free movement of goods — Absence of justifications

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring systematically, in addition to production of a certificate of registration, production of a vehicle’s certificate of conformity, for the purpose of a roadworthiness test prior to the registration of a vehicle previously registered in another Member State, and by making such vehicles, when there is a change of ownership, subject to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration, without taking into account the results of the roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, as amended by Council Directive 2006/103/EC of 20 November 2006, and under Article 34 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case C-257/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/17/EC — Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/26

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-257/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/17/EC - Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2008/C 51/43)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-459/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/18

         Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-459/05)
   (2006/C 48/34)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Stovlbaek and D. Maidani, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1), or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/19 provides that Member States are to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive no later than 1 January 2003 and forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
   The Commission observes that the Kingdom of Belgium has still not taken the measures necessary for that purpose or, in any event, has failed to notify the Commission of such measures.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1.


title: Case T-75/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career evaluation report — Appraisal year 2010 — Errors of law — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/18

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-75/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Career evaluation report - Appraisal year 2010 - Errors of law - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 202/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and subsequently by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-128/11, EU:F:2015:168), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Action brought on 17 January 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-14/95)

text:
No C 54/12           ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
down in Article 15 of the Directive with regard to alcoholic                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 ( l )
beverages of less than 10 degrees strength.                                     introducing Community measures for the control of
                                                                                avian influenza, and
(!) OJ No L 298 , 7. 10. 1989, p. 23 .
                                                                            — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
                                                                                down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                                fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
                                                                                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) (a ) (i ) of Directive
                                                                                91/493/EEC (2),
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Bonn by order of that court of 30 November 1994 in the                      and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission,
case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH                      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      Krankenhausservice, joined party: Lefarth GmbH                        obligations under the penultimate articles of the said
                            Case C-13/95 )                                  directives and under the EC Treaty;
                             ( 95/C 54/19 )
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Bonn (Bonn Labour Court) of 30 November 1994, which
was received at the Court Registry on 1 8 January 1 995, for a         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
preliminary ruling in the case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker             paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, joined                       Article 5 of the EEC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
party: Lefarth GmbH, on the following questions:                       States to whom directives are addressed to adopt the
                                                                       measures necessary for the implementation of such
1 . On the basis of the judgments of the Court of Justice of           directives within the time-limit prescribed therein. The
     14 April 1994 in Case C-392/92 ( J ) and 19 May 1992 in           time-limit in question expired on 1 January 1993 but the
     CaseC-29/91 (2), is Directive 77/1 87/EEC ( 3 ) applicable        Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the necessary
                                                                       measures .
     if an undertaking terminates a contract with an outside
     undertaking in order then to transfer it to another
     outside undertaking?                                              (!) OJ No L 167, 22 . 6.1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       (2 ) OJ No L 187, 7. 7. 1992, p. 41 .
2. Is there a legal transfer within the meaning of the
     directive in the case of the operation described in
     Question 1 even if no tangible or intangible business
     assets are retransferred ?
(M OJ No C 132, 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 4.                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
(2 ) OJ No C 153 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p. 4 .                               Grande Instance de Morlaix by judgment of that court of
(3 ) OJ No L 61 , 18 . 6 . 1992, p. 26 .                               14 December 1994 in the case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast v. 1 .
                                                                       Union Regionale de Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA)
                                                                                and 2. Cooperative du Trieux
                                                                                (Case C-15/95 )
                                                                                95/C 54/21
Action brought on 17 January 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Belgium                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                           (Case C-14/95 )                             Grande Instance (Regional Court), Morlaix, of
                            ( 95/C 54/20 )                             14 December 1994, which was received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 18 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast against 1 . Union Regionale de
before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on              Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA) and 2. Cooperative du
17 January 1995 by the Commission of the European                      Trieux on the following questions:
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1 . On a proper construction of Article 7 of Council
at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,                    Regulation ( EEC) No 857/84 (*) are producers
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   precluded from entering into joint ventures — which are
                                                                            without legal personality of their own, are not effective
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 against third parties and are unpublicized — in so far as
                                                                            they constitute a disguised form of quota-leasing, or are
1 . declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 such ventures authorized as a necessary structural
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply                 adjustment within the meaning of Article 1 of Council
     with                                                                   Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (2)?


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 September 1999 in Case C-219/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken BV v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven (Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme - Compatibility with competition rules - Classification of a sectoral pension fund as an undertaking)

text:
C 366/8                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2. Consideration of the requirements laid down in Chapter III of
                                                                                Directive 92/46, particularly in Article 23 thereof, in the light
                                                                                of Article 132(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 183(1) EC) and
                      of 21 September 1999                                      Articles 102 and 103 of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
                                                                                25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                                territories with the European Economic Community, has disclosed
in Case C-106/97 (reference for a preliminary-ruling from                       no factor affecting its validity.
the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Dutch
Antillian Dairy Industry Inc., Verenigde Douane-Agenten
   BV v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees (1)                    3. Article 23 of Directive 92/46 must be interpreted as applying
                                                                                to imports from the overseas countries and territories, even where
                                                                                the arrangements provided for by that Directive for trade between
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —                        Member States have not already been implemented and the lists
Importation of butter originating in the Dutch Antilles —                       of approved exporting countries and establishments have not
Health rules relating to milk-based products — Article 131                      been drawn up in accordance with the method laid down in that
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 182 EC),                        provision; given that such lists have not been validly established
Article 132 of the EC Treaty (now Article 183 EC),                              in accordance with the method laid down in that provision,
Articles 136 and 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                        Commission Decision 94/70/EC of 31 January 1994 drawing
ment, Articles 187 EC and 299 EC) — Directive 92/46/EEC                         up a provisional list of third countries from which Member States
                      — Decision 94/70/EC)                                      authorise imports of raw milk, heat treated milk and milk based
                                                                                products is invalid.
                          (1999/C 366/12)
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-106/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven, Netherlands, for a preliminary                                      of 21 September 1999
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Dutch Antillian Dairy Industry Inc., Verenigde Douane-
Agenten BV and Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees,                in Case C-219/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
with Nederlandse Antillen — on the interpretation and validity              the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Maatschappij Drijvende
of Chapter III of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992               Bokken BV v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer-
laying down the health rules for the production and placing                                        en Havenbedrijven (1)
on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based
products (OJ 1992 L 268, p. 1), in particular Article 23 thereof,           (Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme —
and on the validity of Commission Decision 94/70/EC of                      Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of a
31 January 1994 drawing up a provisional list of third                                  sectoral pension fund as an undertaking)
countries from which Member States authorise imports of raw
milk, heat treated milk and milk-based products (OJ 1994
L 36, p. 5) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                                        (1999/C 366/13)
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of Chamber, J.C. Moitinho
de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-
nemalm, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 Sep-
tember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1. The provisions of Chapter III of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of
    16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production
    and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and            In Case C-219/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    milk-based products, which require that imports of milk-based           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der
    products from third countries comply with certain health rules,         Nederlanden, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
    must be interpreted as applying to the placing on the Community         proceedings pending before that court between Maatschappij
    market of such products, where these are exported from the              Drijvende Bokken BV and Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de
    overseas countries and territories, such as the Dutch Antilles.         Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven — on the interpretation of
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 366/9
Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC,                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
82 EC and 86 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presi-                              of 21 September 1999
dents of the Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,                       in Case C-307/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-               the Finanzgericht Köln): Compagnie de Saint-Gobain,
eral; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                 Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 1999, in                                                 Innenstadt (1)
which it has ruled:
                                                                            (Freedom of establishment — Taxes on companies’ income
                                                                                — Tax concessions)
1. A decision taken by organisations representing employers and                                        (1999/C 366/14)
    workers in a given sector, in the context of a collective agreement,
    to set up in that sector a single pension fund responsible for
    managing a supplementary pension scheme and to request the                                  (Language of the case: German)
    public authorities to make affiliation to that fund compulsory for
    all workers in that sector does not fall within the scope of
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC).                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-307/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
2. Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                     Köln, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    Article 3(1)(g) EC), Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10         pending before that court between Compagnie de Saint-
    EC) and Article 85 of the Treaty do not prohibit a decision by          Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland and Finanzamt
    the public authorities to make affiliation to a sectoral pension        Aachen-Innenstadt — on the interpretation of Article 52 of
    fund compulsory at the request of organisations representing            the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and
    employers and workers in a given sector.                                Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) — the Court,
                                                                            composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn
                                                                            and G. Hirsch, Presidents of the Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de
                                                                            Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragne-
                                                                            malm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen,
3. A pension fund charged with the management of a supplementary
                                                                            Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
    pension scheme set up by a collective agreement concluded
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September
    between organisations representing employers and workers in a
                                                                            1999, in which it has ruled:
    given sector, to which affiliation has been made compulsory by
    the public authorities for all workers in that sector, is an
    undertaking within the meaning of Article 85 et seq. of the             Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
    Treaty.                                                                 and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude the
                                                                            exclusion of a permanent establishment in Germany of a company
                                                                            limited by shares having its seat in another Member State from
                                                                            enjoyment, on the same conditions as those applicable to companies
                                                                            limited by shares having their seat in Germany, of tax concessions
4. Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 82 EC and              taking the form of:
    86 EC) do not preclude the public authorities from conferring on
    a pension fund the exclusive right to manage a supplementary            — an exemption from corporation tax for dividends received from
    pension scheme in a given sector.                                           companies established in non-member countries (corporation tax
                                                                                relief for international groups), provided for by a treaty for the
                                                                                avoidance of double taxation concluded with a non-member
                                                                                country,
                                                                            — the crediting, against German corporation tax, of the corporation
                                                                                tax levied in a State other than the Federal Republic of Germany
(1) OJ No C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                                   on the profits of a subsidiary established there, provided for by
                                                                                German legislation, and
                                                                            — an exemption from capital tax for shareholdings in companies
                                                                                established in non-member countries (capital tax relief for
                                                                                international groups), also provided for by German legislation.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.1997.