title: Case C-267/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 28 May 2010 — André Rossius v État belge — SPF Finances

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 28 May 2010 — André Rossius v État belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-267/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/36
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: André Rossius

      Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Intervener: État belge — SPF Defence

      Questions referred

         First question:

   Do the following provisions of European Union law:

               1.

               Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009, under which: ‘The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on [12] December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. …’;

               2.

               Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union (1) (OJ C 364 of 18 December 2000), under which ‘Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment … A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’;

         interpreted in accordance with the main principles on which the European Union is based, as reiterated in the preamble to the Treaty of Lisbon,
   preclude a Member State, in this case Belgium, from allowing the manufacture, importation, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco to continue within its territory, even though that same State officially recognises that those products are seriously harmful to the health of those who use them and identified as being the cause of numerous disabling diseases and numerous premature deaths, a consideration which should logically justify their prohibition?

         Second question:

   Do the following provisions of European Union law:

               1.

               Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009, under which: ‘The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on [12] December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. …’; and

               2.

               Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 364 of 18 December 2000), under which ‘Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’;

         interpreted in accordance with the main principles on which the European Union is based, as reiterated in the preamble to the Treaty of Lisbon,
   preclude the following provisions of Belgian law:

               the Loi générale sur les douanes et accises coordonnée par arrêté royal du 18 juillet 1977 (General Law on Customs and Excise coordinated by Royal Decree of 18 July 1977) (Moniteur belge of 21 September 1977), confirmed by the Law of 6 July 1978, Article 1 (Moniteur belge of 12 August 1978);

               the Loi du 10 juin 1997 relative au régime général, à la détention, à la circulation et aux contrôles des produits soumis à accise (Law of 10 June 1997 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (Moniteur belge of 1 August 1997);

               the Loi du 3 avril 1997 relative au régime fiscal des tabacs manufacturés (Law of 3 April 1997 on the tax arrangements for manufactured tobacco) (Moniteur belge of 1 August 1997), amended by the Law of 26 November 2006 (Moniteur belge of 8 December 2006);

         from authorising the Belgian State to regard manufactured smoking tobacco as a taxable base for excise duty, even though:

               On the one hand, that State officially recognises that those products are seriously detrimental to the health of those who use them and identified as being the cause of numerous disabling diseases and numerous premature deaths, which should logically justify their disappearance;

               On the other hand, by proceeding in that way, the State itself impedes the adoption of measures capable of actually bringing about that disappearance by attaching more importance to tax yield than to any genuinely dissuasive effect?

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-180/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v OHIM (three-dimensional mark Bocksbeutel )

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v OHIM (three-dimensional mark ‘Bocksbeutel’)
   (Case T-180/06) (1)

   (2008/C 171/93)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-320/09: Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Planet v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/67

         Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Planet v Commission
   (Case T-320/09)
   2009/C 267/122
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Planet AE, a public limited consultancy company (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the two Commission (OLAF) decisions requesting the applicant’s registration initially in category W1a and subsequently in category W1b of the early warning system (EWS);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action seeks the annulment, first, of the Commission decision requesting the applicant’s registration in category W1a of the early warning system (‘the EWS’) and, second, of the Commission decision requesting the amendment of that first decision in order to register the applicant from 25 May 2009 in the more unfavourable category W1b of the EWS.
   The applicant submits that the contested measures are vitiated by infringement of essential procedural requirements, on account of a failure to comply with the conditions laid down by Decision 2008/969/EC (1) that relate to the procedural rules which must be followed in order for registrations entered in the EWS to be consistent with Community law. In particular, the applicant observes that, under Article 8(1) of that decision, the competent Commission organ responsible for signing a contract is obliged to inform in advance the natural or legal person in respect of whom registration of a warning in the EWS has been requested that data concerning him may be registered. Moreover, under Article 3(1)(c) of the decision, the registration must be accompanied by due reasoning.
   The applicant further contends that the failure to comply with the obligations laid down by Article 8 of Decision 2008/969/EC also infringes basic principles and fundamental rights recognised by Community law. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission’s conduct is contrary to the principle of sound administration, laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Commission did not duly inform the applicant in advance in accordance with the requirements of Article 8(1) of Decision 2008/969/EC, denying it the possibility of making its views known. At the same time, the Commission breached its duty of care. Furthermore, the Commission’s conduct infringes Article 1 of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour applicable to Commission staff in their relations with the public.
   Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the right to a prior hearing, rights of defence and the presumption of innocence since the applicant was not given the opportunity to make known its views and its objections regarding the decisions as to registration in the EWS which were to be adopted by the competent Commission organ.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125).


title: Case C-568/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Assen — Netherlands) — Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie, van Spijker Infrabouw BV, de Jonge Konstruktie BV v Provincie Drenthe (Public contracts — Procedures for reviewing the award of public works contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Duty of Member States to make provision for a review procedure — National legislation permitting a court hearing an application for interim measures to authorise a decision awarding a public contract which may subsequently be held contrary to European Union legal rules by the court hearing the substance of the case — Compatibility with the directive — Award of damages to the tenderers harmed — Conditions)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Assen — Netherlands) — Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie, van Spijker Infrabouw BV, de Jonge Konstruktie BV v Provincie Drenthe
   (Case C-568/08) (1)

   (Public contracts - Procedures for reviewing the award of public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Duty of Member States to make provision for a review procedure - National legislation permitting a court hearing an application for interim measures to authorise a decision awarding a public contract which may subsequently be held contrary to European Union legal rules by the court hearing the substance of the case - Compatibility with the directive - Award of damages to the tenderers harmed - Conditions)
   2011/C 55/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Assen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie, Van Spijker Infrabouw BV, De Jonge Konstruktie BV

      Defendant: Provincie Drenthe

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Assen — Interpretation of Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC — National legislation providing for parallel jurisdiction of civil courts and administrative courts which may result in conflicting decisions — Jurisdiction of the administrative courts limited to an appraisal of the tendering decision — Jurisdiction excluded in the case where a decision has been taken to award the contract to one of the tenderers — Award of damages

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, do not preclude a system in which, in order to obtain a rapid decision, the only procedure available is characterised by the fact that it is geared to a rapid mandatory measure, that lawyers have no right to exchange views, that no evidence is, as a rule, presented other than in written form, that statutory rules on evidence are not applicable, and that the judgment does not lead to the final determination of the legal situation and does not form part of a decision-making process leading to such a final decision.

               2.

               Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, must be interpreted as not precluding a court hearing an application for interim measures, for the purposes of adopting a provisional measure, from carrying out an interpretation of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts which is, subsequently, classified as erroneous by the court hearing the substance of the case.

               3.

               As regards State liability for damage caused to individuals by infringements of European Union (EU) law for which the State may be held responsible, the individuals harmed have a right to redress where the rule of EU law which has been infringed is intended to confer rights on them, the breach of that rule is sufficiently serious, and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the loss or damage sustained by the individuals. In the absence of any provisions of EU law in that area, it is for the internal legal order of each Member State, once those conditions have been complied with, to determine the criteria on the basis of which the damage arising from an infringement of EU law on the award of public contracts must be determined and estimated, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are complied with.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-87/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Income tax — Non-resident taxpayer — Deductibility of costs relating to a historic building occupied by its owner — Costs not deductible in respect of a historic building solely on the ground that it is not listed in the State of taxation, whereas it is listed in the State of residence)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X
   (Case C-87/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Income tax - Non-resident taxpayer - Deductibility of costs relating to a historic building occupied by its owner - Costs not deductible in respect of a historic building solely on the ground that it is not listed in the State of taxation, whereas it is listed in the State of residence))
   (2015/C 065/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: X

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which, on the ground of protection of the national cultural and historical heritage, costs relating to listed historic buildings may be deducted solely by owners of historic buildings situated in its territory, provided that that possibility is available to owners of historic buildings which may form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that Member State despite being located in the territory of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-149/09: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-149/09) (1)

   2010/C 63/77

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-12/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/31
    new rule departing from the provisions of Article 23                termination of the contract and by its notification on
    of the Staff Regulations, according to which the                    the last possible date,
    development of each official's career is linked to the
    results achieved by the department to which he is
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    assigned. This method would favour officials who
    carry out administrative duties over those in
    operational units which involve a high level of                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    professional risk. Moreover, in the present case, the
    evaluation of the applicant's work was always made
    by managers of whom he had always been critical,               The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    whereas sound management requires the absolute                 are the same as those raised in Case C-257/97 E-Quattro
    separation of assessors and assessed,                          v. Commission (1).
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 9.
Ð distortion of the facts and misuse of powers. In the
    applicant's annual assessment for 1996 there are many
    positive statements about him. Nonetheless, the
    defendant blocked every possible career route within
    the Treasury Department. Thus the annual report was
    used systematically for purposes other than those for
    which it was intended,                                         Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl and
                                                                   Others against the Council of the European Union and the
Ð manifest illogicality and inconsistency of the rejection.                 Commission of the European Communities
    First, in 1996 he assumed direct responsibility for the                                (Case T-12/98)
    management of the cover portfolio and the Guarantee
    Fund, which belies the contested decision, and,                                         (98/C 94/77)
    secondly, since Article 23 of the defendant's Staff
    Regulations places no limits on promotions to D, if                            (Language of the case: Italian)
    the real obstacle to the promotion in question was that
    there were fewer opportunities in the unit dealing with
    obligations, it would have sufficed to transfer the            An action against the Council of the European Union and
    applicant to another operational unit in order to              the Commission of the European Communities was
    resolve the problem.                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl, Berca srl,
                                                                   Bonaldi snc di Guidetti & Co., Camasped di Cassini
                                                                   Marco, Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali srl, Centro
                                                                   Servizi Doganali srl, Comimpex srl, EIR, Casa di
                                                                   spedizioni snc di Brassanelli Eligio & Co., Emmedue sas
                                                                   di Felisati & Co. in liquidazione, Errek sas, F.lli Colli srl,
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by SocietaÁ E-Quattro               F.lli Ramella srl, Greco Umberto di Umberto Greco snc,
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Lurasped di Luerti G. & C. sas in liquidazione, Monterisi
                        (Case T-10/98)                             Giuseppe & Co., Rossi Sergio & Co. snc, Servizi Doganali
                                                                   di Piras Giorgio & Co. snc, Spedizioni ST1 srl, Toccafondi
                         (98/C 94/76)                              Claudio Spedizioniere Doganale srl in liquidazione, Tre
                                                                   Esse snc di Torresani F.lli e Crescini Leandro, Unisped srl,
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     Vergani Spedizioni srl in liquidazione, represented by
                                                                   Gregorio Leone of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough of the
                                                                   Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Rue.
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997
by SocietaÁ E-Quattro, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service        The applicants claim that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.
                                                                   Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
                                                                        the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
                                                                        repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
                                                                        agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
Ð order the Commission to make good the damage
                                                                        Council when organising the free movement of goods
    suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                        within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
    of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the
                                                                        taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
    services set out in the unpaid invoice,
                                                                        of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
                                                                        Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
Ð order, further, the Commission to make good the                       adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
    damage caused to the company by the unjustified                     protection of the rights of the applicants,
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/32                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
Ð order, further, the defendants jointly to pay the costs.          Luigi Pecetti, Nicola Maria Spadaccino, Giovanni Tria,
                                                                    Vito Stefano Tria and Nicola Utzeri, represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Gregorio Leone, of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough, of
                                                                    the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
The applicants, all of which are companies whose                    Grand-Rue.
principal business is that of customs forwarding services,
carried on either by the partners of the company or by
customs agents employed by them, seek compensation for              The applicants claim that the Court should:
what they claim to be the abrupt removal, with effect
from January 1993, of customs formalities for intra-                Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
Community trade, and from 1 January 1995 in respect of                  the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
the EFTA countries, the result of which was essentially the             the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
closure of customs posts and the dismissal of customs                   repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
officials.                                                              agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
                                                                        Council when organising the free movement of goods
                                                                        within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
The applicants observe that Article 8 a of the Treaty of
                                                                        taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
Rome, introduced by the Single European Act, introduced
                                                                        of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
the concept of the internal market into Community law
                                                                        Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
and that as a result of the secondary legislation adopted in
                                                                        adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
order to organise the free movement of goods according to
                                                                        protection of the rights of the applicants,
the new guidelines, the intra-Community customs activity
was removed.
                                                                    Ð order, moreover, the defendants jointly to pay the
                                                                        costs.
The applicants point out, first, that the Commission failed
to propose, and the Council failed to adopt, transitional
measures which would have enabled those affected to                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
adapt gradually to the new situation and, secondly, that
the measures adopted by the Community bodies to                     The pleas-in-law and main arguments are identical with
overcome those difficulties were in no way compensatory             those relied on in Case T-12/98 Argon srl and Others v.
in nature.                                                          Council and Commission.
The applicants further state that, in the context of the
Community legislative action which caused the damage,
the Community authorities disregarded the acquired rights
of the customs and forwarding agents as well as the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and         Action brought on 14 January 1998 by Centre d'Action
non-discrimination.                                                 Culturelle du Sart-Tilman asbl against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
In the alternative, the applicants, in claiming no-fault                                   (Case T-15/98)
liability, also allege not only that the principle of equality                              (98/C 94/79)
in bearing public burdens has been breached but also that
the conduct of the Community bodies is tantamount to
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
depriving them of their acquired rights.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 14 January
                                                                    1998 by Centre d'Action Culturelle du Sart-Tilman asbl,
                                                                    established in LieÁge (Belgium), represented by Bernadette
Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe and               Graulich, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
Others against the Council of the European Union and the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val
          Commission of the European Communities                    Sainte-Croix.
                        (Case T-13/98)
                         (98/C 94/78)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant BEF
                                                                        12 323 006,
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                      Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              the rate of 8 % on that amount as from 18 October
Communities on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe, Giulio                  1990,
Comoglio, Sergio De Bona, Piero Luciano Galbiati,
Umberto Greco, Mario Malugani, Alessandro Michelucci,               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-52/12: Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ v European Parliament

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/22

         Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ v European Parliament
   (Case F-52/12)
   2012/C 200/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment, first, of the decision fixing the applicant’s main place of residence in Luxembourg; and, second, of the decision modifying the applicant’s pension entitlements by withdrawing the correction coefficient for France as from 1 January 2010.

      Form of order sought

               —

               By way of principal claim:

                           —

                           Annul the decision fixing the applicant’s main place of residence in Luxembourg, and the decision of 28 June 2011 modifying the applicant’s pension entitlements by withdrawing the correction coefficient for France as from 1 January 2010;

                           —

                           Order the Parliament to repay the sums unduly paid;

                           —

                           Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of pension with default interest calculated from the date the arrears fell due at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two points;

               —

               In the alternative:

                           —

                           Annul the contested decisions in so far as they have retroactive effect to 1 January 2010;

                           —

                           Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of pension with default interest calculated from the date the arrears fell due at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two points;

               —

               In any event:

                           —

                           Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 July 1997 in Case C-130/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Bernd Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost (Article 177 - Jurisdiction of the Court - National legislation adopting Community provisions - Community Customs Code - Appeal - Suspension of a customs decision - Provision of security)

text:
6 . 9 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 271 /3
            acquiring companies becomes the sole shareholder              ( Finance Court, Hesse ), Kassel ( Germany) for a
            and director of the acquiring company does not                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
            prevent the operation in question from being                  court between Bernd Giloy and Hauptzollamt Frankfurt
            treated as a merger by exchange of shares.                    am Main-Ost — on the interpretation of Article 244 of
                                                                          Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October
      ( b ) Article 11 of Directive 90/434 is to be interpreted           1992 establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ
            as meaning that in determining whether the                    L 302, 19 . 10 . 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of:
            planned operation has as its principal objective or           G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
            as one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax         Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon
            avoidance, the competent national authorities must            ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
            carry out a general examination of the operation              Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J.
            in each particular case. Such an examination must             P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
            be open to judicial review. Under Article 11 (1 ) (a)         Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl,
            of Directive 90/434, the Member States may                    Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
            stipulate that the fact that the planned operation is         judgment on 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :
            not carried out for valid commercial reasons
            constitutes a presumption of tax evasion or tax               1 . On a proper construction of the second paragraph of
            avoidance. It is for the Member States, observing                  Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
            the principle of proportionality, to determine the                 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
            internal procedures necessary for this purpose.                    Customs Code, the customs authorities should suspend
            However, the laying down of a general rule                         implementation of a disputed customs decision in
            automatically excluding certain categories of                      whole or in part where one only of the two conditions
            operations from the tax advantage, on the basis of                 mentioned in that provision is fulfilled, so that
            criteria such as those mentioned in the second
                                                                               suspension must be granted where there is a risk of
            answer under (a), whether or not there is actually                 irreparable damage for the person concerned. It is not
            tax evasion or tax avoidance, would go further                     necessary that there be reason to believe that the
            than is necessary for preventing such tax evasion                  disputed decision is inconsistent with customs
            or such tax avoidance and would undermine the                      legislation.
            aim pursued by Directive 90/434.
                                                                          2 . The fact that irreparable damage may be suffered by
      ( c ) 'Valid commercial reasons ', within the meaning of
                                                                               the person concerned in the event of immediate
            Article 11 of Directive 90/434, must be interpreted
                                                                               implementation of a disputed customs decision does
            as involving more than the attainment of a purely
                                                                               not prevent the customs authorities from making
            fiscal advantage such as horizontal off-setting of
            losses.
                                                                               suspension of its implementation conditional upon the
                                                                               lodging of security. However, if the requirement to
                                                                               lodge security is likely, owing to the debtor's
(') OJ C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                                  circumstances, to cause serious economic or social
                                                                               difficulties, the customs authorities are free to decide
                                                                               not to require such security to be lodged.
                                                                          3 . Making suspension of implementation of a disputed
                                                                               customs decision subject to the lodging of security
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        would be likely to cause serious economic or social
                           of 17 July 1997                                     difficulties for a debtor who does not have sufficient
                                                                               means to provide such security.
in Case C-130/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel ): Bernd Giloy v.
              Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost (')                      4 . Where suspension of implementation of a disputed
                                                                               customs decision is subject, under the third paragraph
(Article 177 — Jurisdiction of the Court — National                            of Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92, to the
legislation adopting Community provisions — Community                          lodging of security, the amount of that security must
Customs Code — Appeal — Suspension of a customs                                be set at the precise amount of the debt or, if this
                  decision — Provision of security)                            cannot be established with certainty, at the maximum
                                                                               amount of the debt which has been, or may be,
                              ( 97/C 271 /04 )
                                                                               incurred, unless the requirement to provide security is
                                                                               likely to cause the debtor serious economic or social
                   (Language of the case: German)                              difficulties; if that is the case, the amount of security
                                                                               may be set, taking into account the debtor's financial
                                                                               situation, at an amount less than the total amount of
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 the debt concerned.
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          (') OJ C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
In Case C-130/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hessisches Finanzgericht


title: Case T-49/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/29

         Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-49/09)
   2009/C 90/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for tender REGIO-A4-2008-01 for the “Maintenance and development of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy’s Information System” (1) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 21 November 2008 and all further related decisions including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 4 520 845,05;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender REGIO-A4-2008-01 for the “Maintenance and Development of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy’s Information System” and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment by introducing a posteriori the criteria which were unknown to the tenderers and by using a discriminatory evaluation formula.
   Second, the applicant contends that the evaluation committee did not provide sufficient motivation of its decision.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to observe essential procedural requirements by introducing a complementary evaluation committee.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the defendant based its evaluation of the applicant’s tender on unfounded considerations and assumptions thus committing serious and manifest errors of assessment and misusing its power.

      (1)  OJ 2008/S 117-155067


title: Case C-386/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper plumbing tubes — Fines — Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration — Effective judicial remedy)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission
   (Case C-386/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper plumbing tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)
   2012/C 32/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon (represented by: I. Forrester QC)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Grippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents, B. Doherty, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-21/05 Chalkor v Commission by which the Court reduced the fine imposed on the appellant by Commission Decision 2006/485/EC of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper Plumbing Tubes) (notified under document number C(2004) 2826), concerning a system for the allocation of production volume and market shares and the establishment of objectives and price increases in the European market for copper plumbing tubes

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Action brought on 19 January 1995 by Cantine dei Colli Berici Cooperative A.R.L. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-6/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/ 11
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and D. P. M.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Barrington and K. Lenaerts, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                 of 6 February 1995
given a judgment on 2 February 1995, in which it:                    in Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête and Others v.
                                                                                European Investment Bank ( x )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the European                                      (Taxation of costs)
     Parliament of 16 June 1992 appointing Mrs X                                                  ( 95/C 74/21 )
     temporarily to the post of Language Adviser in the
     Danish Translation Division (Directorate-General for
     Translation and General Services);                                              (Language of the case: French)
2. orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            In Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête, residing at
                                                                     Caluire-et-Cuire ( France ), Jean-Pierre Raffin, residing at
                                                                     Paris, Felix Masola, residing at Villeurbanne ( France ),
0 ) OJ No C 34, 6 . 2 . 1993 .                                       Louis-Max Duplessy, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Marie-Louise Guigen, residing at Villeurbanne, Henri
                                                                     Chavaleyre, residing at Villeurbanne, Francois Meillasson,
                                                                     residing at Villeurbanne, Jean Margerand, residing at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Jean-Claude                Pagand, residing   at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Henri Alloix, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Groupe des Elus Verts au Conseil Regional, established at
                                                                     Charbonnières-les-Bains ( France ), Collectif Auto-stop,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             established at Lyon ( France ), Association Sauvegarde de
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              l'Ouest Lyonnais, established at Caluire-et-Cuire,
                                                                     represented by Jean-Marc Bazy, of the Lyon Bar, with an
                      of 23 January 1995                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV              Monique Wirion, 1 Place du Theatre v. European
      v. Commission of the European Communities ( J )                Investment Bank (Agents : L. La Marca and C. Turk ) —
                          (Admissibility)                            application for the taxation of costs following the order of
                                                                     the Court of First Instance of 26 November 1993 in Case
                           ( 95/C 74/20                              T-460/93 Tête and Others v. European Investment Bank —
                                                                     the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                     Composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, A.
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Saggio, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili,
                                                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 February
In Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV,              1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
established in Bonn ( Germany), represented by Joachim
Müller, Rechtsanwalt of Munich, with an address for                  the total amount ofthe costs recoverable by the defendant in
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean Wagener                 Case T-460/93 is set at Bfr 220 000.
and Alain Rukavina, 10A Boulevard de la Foire, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : M. J.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 339 , 22 . 12 . 1992 .
Jonczy and N. Lorenz ) — application for the annulment of
the Commission's decision of 4 November 1993 rejecting
the applicant's complaint seeking a declaration that the
German legislation on tax advisors infringes Articles 59 and
86 of the EC Treaty and that, by failing to take the necessary
applications in order to comply with the EC Treaty, the
Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 5 and 90
of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth              Action brought on 19 January 1995 by Cantine dei Colli
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.                    Berici Cooperative A.R.L. against the Commission of the
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                      European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 23 January 1995 , the operative                                      ( Case T-6/95 )
part of which is as follows :                                                                      ( 95/C 74/22 )
1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . the applicant shall pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 1995
0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994.                                     by the Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop . A.R.L. , represented by
                                                                     Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 5 1
                                                                     Rue Albert I.
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                 proven unlawfulness of those measures that the contested
 should :                                                              measure extending the abovementioned Community
                                                                       obligation is also unlawful.
 — first require the defendant authorities to produce the
     documents asked for and specified, expressly subject to           The provisions imposing obligations are unlawful as a
     any supplementary measures,                                       consequence of the illegality of Article 39 (4) of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 822/87 and the fourth indent of Article 4 (2) of
     and then                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 441 /88
 — annul Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3151/94 (*) and              The applicant raises a preliminary plea based on the
     any other act connected to it and/or on which it is based,        lawfulness of Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87,
     on the preliminary objection under Article 184 of the             in so far as it determines the quantity to be delivered for
     EEC Treaty that Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )             distillation by each producer; essentially, each producer is
     No 822/87, and the fourth indent of Article 4 (2 ) of             required to distil a certain percentage of the volume
     Regulation (EEC ) No 441/88 are invalid,                          produced, determined according to the 'yield Per hectare'.
                                                                       Since that rule is subject to absolutely no test calculated to
                                                                       demonstrate actual overproduction or the quality of the
 — order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.                      product, it is clearly unsuitable for the pursuit of the
                                                                       Community's objectives, and it imposes excessive penalties
                                                                       on producers of good-quality wine who have in no way
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                       overproduced.
 Breach of Article 39 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 With respect to the unlawfulness of the fourth indent of
 No 822/87                                                            Article 4 (2 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 441/88 , the applicant
                                                                      criticizes the failure to divide Italy into several production
                                                                      regions, since that leads to failure to take account of the
The applicant claims that the contested provision is
                                                                      special characteristics of the Italian wine-producing areas in
 unlawful because it is not based on the legal premise that it
                                                                      terms of land, production, origin and development.
 should operate to remedy the imbalance of the current wine
year, as required in Article 39 ( 1 ) of the basic regulation; in
essence, it considers the abovementioned measure to be                 H OJ No L 332, 22 . 12 . 1994, p. 32 .
 unlawful inasmuch as the regulation seeks to restore the
 balance of the marketing year 1993/94 by fulfilment of the
obligation to distil in both the completed wine year 1993/94
and also during the new wine year 1994/95 .
Breach of the principle that Community acts should be
proportionate to their aim                                            Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang against
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant claims that the Community legislature
wrongfully sought to restore the balance of the wine year                                      (Case T-7/95 )
 1993/94 by requiring a quantity of wine to be removed from                                     ( 95/C 74/23 )
the market not only for the completed wine year but also
during the new marketing year (the 1994/95 vintage is
already in). The applicant regards that measure as                                   (Language of the case: German)
manifestly and wholly ineffective, having regard to the aim
of the framework legislation; it claims that there is no doubt        An action against the Council of the European Union and
that the measure is insufficient to restore the balance of a
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
market ( by removing an excess of supply compared to                  before the Court of First Instance of the European
expected demand) for the last wine year. The measure                  Communities on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang, Burggen
therefore appears not to be 'appropriate and necessary' for           ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
the attainment of the objective pursued .                             Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte, Miinster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Unlawful for lack of grounds                                          of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant points out that the compulsory distillation
prescribed by the European Communitiy for the wine year               The applicant claims that the Court should :
1993/94 is a serious breach of the Community rules
governing the common organization of the wine market and              1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
the principles on which the Community legal order is based.                SLOM I compensation for the period from 1 1 February
In the applicant's opinion, it follows from the manifest and               1986 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 88 805,


title: Case T-105/14: Action brought on 12 February 2014 — TrekStor v OHIM — Scanlab (iDrive)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/54

         Action brought on 12 February 2014 — TrekStor v OHIM — Scanlab (iDrive)
   (Case T-105/14)
   2014/C 112/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, Hong Kong) (represented by: M. Alber, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scanlab AG (Puchheim, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 2330/2012-1 to the effect that the mark ‘iDrive’ is allowed to proceed to registration in its entirety and that the opposing party’s opposition is rejected;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘iDrive’ for goods in Class 9 (Community trade mark application No 10 267 573)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Scanlab AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘IDRIVE’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article [42](5) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: By orders of  15 December 2005 , the Court of First Instance of the European Communities referred to the Civil Service Tribunal, pursuant to Article 3(3) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom, of  2 November 2004  establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, the cases listed in the first column of the table below

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/34

         By orders of 15 December 2005, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities referred to the Civil Service Tribunal, pursuant to Article 3(3) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom, of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, (1) the cases listed in the first column of the table below
   (2006/C 60/73)
   These cases have been entered in the Register of the Civil Service Tribunal under the numbers given in the last column below.

               Number of the case transferred by the Court of First Instance

               Names of the parties

               Notice in the Official Journal of registration of the case

               Number of entry in the Register of the Civil Service Tribunal

               OJ

               of

               T-408/04

                Kröppelin v Council

               C

               300

                4/12/2004

               F-2/05

               T-419/04

                Schmit v Commission

               C

               6

                8/01/2005

               F-3/05

               T-438/04

                Huober v Council

               C

               6

                8/01/2005

               F-4/05

               T-22/05

                Violetti and Others v Commission

               C

               82

                2/04/2005

               F-5/05

               T-54/05

                Kröppelin v Council

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-6/05

               T-84/05

                Schmit v Commission

               C

               106

                30/04/2005

               F-7/05

               T-114/05

                Block and Others v Commission

               C

               115

                14/05/2005

               F-8/05

               T-116/05

                Lacombe v Council

               C

               115

                14/05/2005

               F-9/05

               T-120/05

                Knaul and Others v Commission

               C

               115

                14/05/2005

               F-10/05

               T-123/05

                Chassagne v Commission

               C

               115

                14/05/2005

               F-11/05

               T-124/05

                Tas v Commission

               C

               132

                28/05/2005

               F-12/05

               T-126/05

                Corvoisier and Others v ECB

               C

               132

                28/05/2005

               F-13/05

               T-130/05

                Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission

               C

               132

                28/05/2005

               F-14/05

               T-131/05

                Andres and Others v ECB

               C

               132

                28/05/2005

               F-15/05

               T-132/05

                Falcione v Commission

               C

               143

                11/06/2005

               F-16/05

               T-145/05

                de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

               C

               155

                25/06/2005

               F-17/05

               T-147/05

                Garcia Resusta v Commission

               C

               155

                25/06/2005

               F-18/05

               T-153/05

                Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

               C

               155

                25/06/2005

               F-19/05

               T-160/05

                Johansson and Others v Commission

               C

               171

                9/07/2005

               F-20/05

               T-164/05

                De Geest v Council

               C

               171

                9/07/2005

               F-21/05

               T-165/05

                Neophytou v Commission

               C

               155

                25/06/2005

               F-22/05

               T-169/05

                Giraudy v Commission

               C

               171

                9/07/2005

               F-23/05

               T-170/05

                Amm and Others v Parliament

               C

               171

                9/07/2005

               F-24/05

               T-180/05

                Landgren v European Training Foundation

               C

               182

                23/07/2005

               F-1/05

               T-184/05

                Mc Sweeney and Armstrong v Commission

               C

               182

                23/07/2005

               F-25/05

               T-188/05

                De Bry v Commission

               C

               182

                23/07/2005

               F-26/05

               T-191/05

                Le Maire v Commission

               C

               182

                23/07/2005

               F-27/05

               T-192/05

                Callewaert and Others v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-28/05

               T-196/05

                Vivier v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-29/05

               T-197/05

                Sundholm v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-30/05

               T-200/05

                Cwik v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-31/05

               T-201/05

                Perez Santander v Council

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-32/05

               T-202/05

                Ogou v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-33/05

               T-204/05

                Lebedef and Others v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-34/05

               T-206/05

                Colombani v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-35/05

               T-207/05

                Schulze v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-36/05

               T-208/05

                Brown v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-37/05

               T-213/05

                Delplancke and Governatori v Commission

               C

               193

                6/08/2005

               F-38/05

               T-215/05

                Beau v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-39/05

               T-219/05

                Andreasen v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-40/05

               T-220/05

                Jacobs v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-41/05

               T-222/05

                Rossi Ferreras v Commission

               C

               217

                3/09/2005

               F-42/05

               T-224/05

                Chassagne v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-43/05

               T-225/05

                Strack v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-44/05

               T-226/05

                Lantzoni v Court of Justice

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-45/05

               T-227/05

                Ranguelova v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-46/05

               T-228/05

                Vega Bordell v Parliament

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-47/05

               T-232/05

                Hutchings v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-48/05

               T-234/05

                Bethuyne and Others v Commission

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-49/05

               T-235/05

                Siffert v Court of Justice

               C

               205

                20/08/2005

               F-50/05

               T-249/05

                Duyster v Commission

               C

               217

                3/09/2005

               F-51/05

               T-252/05

                Q v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-52/05

               T-253/05

                Fernandez Tunon v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-53/05

               T-256/05

                Ehrhardt v Parliament

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-54/05

               T-258/05

                Voigt v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-55/05

               T-260/05

                Strobl v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-56/05

               T-261/05

                Sliggers v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-57/05

               T-265/05

                Maes v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-58/05

               T-267/05

                De Smedt v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-59/05

               T-268/05

                Vande Velde v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-60/05

               T-269/05

                Dalmasso v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-61/05

               T-270/05

                Ghem v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-62/05

               T-271/05

                Arana de la Cal v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-63/05

               T-272/05

                Veramme v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-64/05

               T-282/05

                Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-65/05

               T-283/05

                Baraldi and Others v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-66/05

               T-284/05

                Michail v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-67/05

               T-285/05

                Lippert v Parliament

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-68/05

               T-287/05

                Bengoa Geisler and Others v Court of Justice

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-69/05

               T-288/05

                Mische v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-70/05

               T-289/05

                Milella and Campanella v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-71/05

               T-291/05

                Fardoom and Ashbrook v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-72/05

               T-292/05

                Johansen v Court of Auditors

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-73/05

               T-293/05

                Caldarone v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-74/05

               T-294/05

                Colombani v Commission

               C

               229

                17/09/2005

               F-75/05

               T-302/05

                Torijano Montero v Council

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-76/05

               T-305/05

                Balabanis and Le Dour v Commission

               C

               271

                29/10/2005

               F-77/05

               T-311/05

                Rounis v Commission

               C

               271

                29/10/2005

               F-78/05

               T-314/05

                Arko and Others v Commission

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-79/05

               T-318/05

                De Geest v Council

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-80/05

               T-320/05

                Maccanti v EESC

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-81/05

               T-327/05

                Thierry v Commission

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-82/05

               T-333/05

                Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-83/05

               T-334/05

                Neirinck v Commission

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-84/05

               T-335/05

                Sørensen v Commission

               C

               296

                26/11/2005

               F-85/05

               T-336/05

                De Soeten v Council

               C

               296

                26/11/2005

               F-86/05

               T-349/05

                Ott and Others v Commission

               C

                315

               10/12/2005

               F-87/05

               T-353/05

                Kubanski v Commission

               C

               281

                12/11/2005

               F-88/05

               T-355/05

                Vandaele v Commission

               C

                315

               10/12/2005

               F-89/05

               T-356/05

                Zelenková v Parliament

               C

               296

                26/11/2005

               F-90/05

               T-359/05

                Frankin and Others v Commission

               C

                315

               10/12/2005

               F-91/05

               T-361/05

                Genette v Commission

               C

                315

               10/12/2005

               F-92/05

               T-365/05

                Mische v Parliament

               C

                315

               10/12/2005

               F-93/05

               T-374/05

                Schierhorst v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-94/05

               T-377/05

                Seegmuller v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-95/05

               T-378/05

                Marenco v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-96/05

               T-380/05

                Buendía Sierra v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-97/05

               T-381/05

                Di Bucci v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-98/05

               T-386/05

                Wilms v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-99/05

               T-387/05

                Chatziioannidou v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-100/05

               T-388/05

                Grünheid v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-101/05

               T-389/05

                Eistrup v Parliament

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-102/05

               T-393/05

                Pickering v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-103/05

               T-394/05

                Valero Jordana v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-104/05

               T-399/05

                Wils v Parliament

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-105/05

               T-400/05

                T v Commission

               C

                22

               28/01/2006

               F-106/05

               T-401/05

                Toth v Commission

               C

                22

               28/01/2006

               F-107/05

               T-406/05

                Cavallaro v Commission

               C

                10

               14/01/2006

               F-108/05

               T-408/05

                Marcuccio v Commission

               C

                22

               28/01/2006

               F-109/05

               T-410/05

                Eerola v Commission

               C

                48

               25/02/2006

               F-110/05

               T-413/05

                Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

               C

                48

               25/02/2006

               F-111/05

               T-419/05

                Bain and Others v Commission

               C

                48

               25/02/2006

               F-112/05

               T-421/05

                Kay v Commission

               C

                48

               25/02/2006

               F-113/05

               T-422/05

                Combescot v Commission

               C

                22

               28/01/2006

               F-114/05

               T-427/05

                Vienne and Others v Parliament

               C

                22

               28/01/2006

               F-115/05

               T-431/05

                Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB

               C

                48

               25/02/2006

               F-116/05

               T-433/05

                Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

               C

                36

               11/02/2006

               F-117/05

      (1)  OJ L 333, 9.11.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Joined Cases C-541/99 and C-542/99 (references for preliminary rulings from the Giudice di Pace di Viadana): Cape Snc and Idealservice Srl (C-541/99) and between Idealservice MN RE Sas and OMAI Srl (C-542/99) (Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC — Meaning of "consumer" — Undertaking concluding a standard contract with another undertaking to acquire merchandise or services solely for the benefit of its employees)

text:
19.1.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 17/5
4.    Orders Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, NCC Deutsche Bau                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      GmbH and Esbensen Consulting Engineers, jointly and sever-
      ally, to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
                                                                            in Joined Cases C-541/99 and C-542/99 (references for
                                                                            preliminary rulings from the Giudice di Pace di Viadana):
                                                                            Cape Snc and Idealservice Srl (C-541/99) and between
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                Idealservice MN RE Sas and OMAI Srl (C-542/99) (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC — Meaning of ‘con-
                       of 22 November 2001                                  sumer’ — Undertaking concluding a standard contract with
                                                                            another undertaking to acquire merchandise or services solely
                                                                                for the benefit of its employees)
in Case C-147/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/07)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Ineligible durum wheat
— Quantities missing from the stockpile — Withdrawal of
approval of undertakings packaging olive oil — Inadequate
  management and checks of premiums for sheep and goats)                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2002/C 17/06)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-541/99 and C-542/99: references to the
                                                                            Court under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di Pace
In Case C-147/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted              (Magistrate), Viadana, (Italy) for preliminary rulings in the
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities                   proceedings pending before that court between Cape Snc and
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                  Idealservice Srl (C-541/99) and between Idealservice MN RE
application for annulment of the part concerning the Italian                Sas and OMAI Srl (C-542/99) — on the interpretation of
Republic of Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February                   Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993
1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                      on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29)
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the                 — the Court, composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), President
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and                 of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Guarantee Fund (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37) — the Court (Sixth                     J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,                 Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 Novem-
N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and                        ber 2001, in which it has ruled:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November
2001, in which it:                                                          The term ‘consumer’, as defined in Article 2(b) of Council Directive
                                                                            93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                 must be interpreted as referring solely to natural persons.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Case C-380/14: Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/24

      Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      (Case C-380/14) (1)

      (2015/C 016/39)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case C-447/07: Action brought on 1 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/25

         Action brought on 1 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-447/07)
   (2007/C 297/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

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

               —

               declare that, by laying down in its legislation that Italian citizenship is required for the posts of master or first officer (second-in-command) on all vessels flying the Italian flag, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission claims that the Italian legislation laying down that Italian citizenship is required for the posts of master or second-in-command on all vessels flying the Italian flag does not comply with Article 39 EC, which enshrines the principle of freedom of movement for workers, as interpreted by the Court.
   In two cases concerning, respectively, the posts of master and second-in-command of merchant ships flying the Spanish flag (Case C-405/01) and the post of master of vessels engaged in small-scale maritime shipping (‘Kleine Seeschifffahrt’), and in the specific case of German-flagged fishing vessels carrying on small-scale maritime fishing (Case C-47/02), the Court made clear, in its judgments of 30 September 2003, the proper interpretation of Article 39 EC.
   The Commission observes that, in the course of the present procedure, the Italian authorities have not put forward any arguments which differ from those put forward at the time in Case C-405/01 (in which the Italian Republic intervened) or those which the French authorities supported in Case C-47/02. Those arguments were rejected by the Court in its judgments of 30 September 2003.
   The Commission confines itself to pointing out that the Italian authorities, in their reply to the reasoned opinion of 22 May 2007, do not deny the infringement. They actually stated their intention of repealing the requirement of Italian citizenship for appointment to the post of master or first officer (second-in-command), undertaking to inform the Commission of the outcome of the consultations between the Ministries concerned.
   The Commission has received no information on the timetable for the amendment of the Italian legislation. Consequently, it submits that the Italian legislation laying down that Italian citizenship is required for the posts of master or second-in-command on all vessels flying the Italian flag does not comply with Article 39 EC, which enshrines the principle of freedom of movement for workers, as interpreted by the Court.


title: Case C-617/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Haparanda Tingsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2010 — Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Haparanda Tingsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2010 — Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson
   (Case C-617/10)
   2011/C 72/24
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Haparanda Tingsrätten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Åklagaren

      Defendant: Hans Åkerberg Fransson

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Swedish law there must be clear support in the European Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) or the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights for a national court to be able to disapply national provisions which may be suspected of infringing the ne bis in idem principle under Article 4 of Additional Protocol No 7 to the ECHR and may also therefore be suspected of infringing Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000 (‘the Charter’). Is such a condition under national law for disapplying national provisions compatible with Union law and in particular its general principles, including the primacy and direct effect of Union law?

               2.

               Does the admissibility of a charge of tax offences come under the ne bis in idem principle under Article 4 of Additional Protocol No 7 to the ECHR and Article 50 of the Charter where a certain financial penalty (tax surcharge) was previously imposed on the defendant in administrative proceedings by reason of the same act of providing false information?

               3.

               Is the answer to Question 2 affected by the fact that there must be coordination of these sanctions in such a way that ordinary courts are able to reduce the penalty in the criminal proceedings because a tax surcharge has also been imposed on the defendant by reason of the same act of providing false information?

               4.

               Under certain circumstances it may be permitted, within the scope of the ne bis in idem principle mentioned in Question 2, to order further sanctions in fresh proceedings in respect of the same conduct which was examined and led to a decision to impose sanctions on the individual. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, are the conditions under the ne bis in idem principle for the imposition of several sanctions in separate proceedings satisfied where in the later proceedings there is an examination of the circumstances of the case which is fresh and independent of the earlier proceedings?

               5.

               The Swedish system of imposing tax surcharges and examining liability for tax offences in separate proceedings is motivated by a number of reasons of general interest, which are described in greater detail below. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is a system like the Swedish one compatible with the ne bis in idem principle when it would be possible to establish a system which would not come under the ne bis in idem principle without it being necessary to refrain from either imposing tax surcharges or ruling on liability for tax offences by, if liability for tax offences is relevant, transferring the decision on the imposition of tax surcharges from the Skatteverket and, where appropriate, administrative courts to ordinary courts in connection with their examination of the charge of tax offences?


title: Case C-148/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2009 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2009 (fax: 22 April 2009 ) in Case T-388/03 Deutsche Post AG and DHL International v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/3

         Appeal brought on 10 February 2009 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2009 (fax: 22 April 2009) in Case T-388/03 Deutsche Post AG and DHL International v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-148/09 P)
   2009/C 167/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and T. Materne, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Deutsche Post AG, DHL International, Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 February 2009 in Case T-388/03 Deutsche Post AG and DHL International v Commission of the European Communities

               —

               Order Deutsche Post and DHL International to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support if its appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009, by which a Commission Decision of 23 July 2003 raising no objections, following a preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to a proposal announced on 3 December 2002 in increase La Poste’s capital and to certain other measures adopted by the Belgium authorities in favour of La Poste was annulled. Those please seeking to have the judgment under appeal set aside.
   By the first plea in law, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the procedural rules concerning the examination of State aids, in so far as it classified certain elements of the preliminary examination procedure and certain aspects of the Commission Decision of 23 July 2003 as objective and consistent evidence of ‘serious difficulties’, which should have necessitated the initiation of the formal investigation procedure under article 88(2) EC.
   By the second plea in law, the appellant states that the judgment under appeal already partially reached a decision on the substantive correctness of the examination, undertaken in the Commission Decision of 23 July 2003, of the existence of State aid and its compatibility with the common market, in so far as it took the fourth and seventh pleas into consideration and also upheld them, although the fourth and seventh pleas should have been declared inadmissible as the applicant, even according to the judgment under appeal, had no corresponding standing to bring proceedings.
   By the third plea in law, the appellant complains that he judgment under appeal breached the principle of legal certainty, in so far as it objects that the Commission, in its examination included in the decision of 23 July 2003, did not take account of the fourth criterion of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 July 2003 in the Altmark Case, which is the criterion of ‘benchmarking’ with the costs of a typical, well-run and appropriately-equipped undertaking, although that judgment was made only after the examination of the present case (and one day after the Commission had decided to raise no objections to the proposed increase to La Poste’s capital), and the criterion in question was not, before that time, reflected in the case-law of the Court f Justice or the Court of First Instance or in the Commission’s decision-making practice.


title: Case T-423/15: Action brought on 28 July 2015 — U-R LAB/OHIM (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/16

         Action brought on 28 July 2015 — U-R LAB/OHIM (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)
   (Case T-423/15)
   (2015/C 328/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: U-R LAB (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘THE DINING EXPERIENCE’ — Application for registration No 12 553 442

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2015 in Case R 2541/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and alter the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;