title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96: Roland Bieber v European Parliament (Officials - Belated reinstatement - Liability - Damage)

text:
25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/25
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 17 June 1998                                                      of 26 May 1998
in Case T-174/95: Svenska Journalistförbundet v Council                    in Case T-205/96: Roland Bieber v European
                  of the European Union (1)                                                  Parliament (1)
(Access to information Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC Ð               (Officials Ð Belated reinstatement Ð Liability Ð
Refusal of an application for access to Council documents                                       Damage)
Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð Title VI of                                         (98/C 234/49)
the Treaty on European Union Ð Scope of the exception
concerning the protection of public security Ð
Confidentiality of the Council's proceedings Ð Statement                            (Language of the case: French)
of reasons Ð Publication of the defence on the Internet Ð
                     Abuse of procedure)                            In Case T-205/96: Roland Bieber, an official of the
                                                                    European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
                        (98/C 234/48)
                                                                    Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v European
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    Parliament (Agent: Evelyn Waldherr) Ð application, first,
                                                                    for annulment of the decision of 18 October 1995
                                                                    implicitly    rejecting     the  applicant's   request  for
In Case T-174/95: Svenska Journalistförbundet, established
                                                                    reinstatement following the conclusion of his period of
in Stockholm, represented by Onno W. Brouwer, of the
                                                                    leave on personal grounds and compensation for the
Amsterdam Bar, and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                    damage allegedly resulting from his non-reinstatement
assisted by Deirdre Curtin, Professor at the University of
                                                                    and, second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
Utrecht, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    caused by the delay in his reinstatement Ð the Court of
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,
                                                                    First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
supported by Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Lotty
                                                                    President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J.
Nordling), Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: Peter Biering
                                                                    Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
and Laurids Mikñlsen), and Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                    given a judgment on 26 May 1998, in which it:
(Agents: Marc Fierstra and Johannes Steven van den
Oosterkamp) against Council of the European Union
(Agents: Giorgio Maganza and Diego Canga Fano),                     1. Annuls the decision implicitly rejecting the request for
supported by French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins               reinstatement and compensation lodged by the
and Denys Wibaux), and United Kingdom of Great Britain                  applicant on 18 October 1995;
and Northern Ireland (Agent: John Collins) Ð application
for the annulment of the Council's decision of 6 July 1995
                                                                    2. Orders the Parliament to compensate the applicant for
refusing the applicant access to certain documents
                                                                        the material damage suffered by him as a result of his
concerning the European Police Office (Europol),
                                                                        not having been reinstated with effect from 1 January
requested under Council Decision 93/731/EC of
                                                                        1995 in Grade A 3, step 6, as a legal adviser in the
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents
                                                                        Parliament, that post having been advertised in
(OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43) Ð the Court of First
                                                                        Vacancy Notice No 7580 of 5 December 1994;
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi,
J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has          3. Declares that the sum payable to the applicant by way
given a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it:                          of compensation for his loss of income from
                                                                        employment is equivalent to the difference between,
                                                                        on the one hand, the net remuneration which he
1. Annuls the Council's decision of 6 July 1995 refusing                would have received between 1 January 1995 and
    the applicant access to certain documents relating to               8 March 1996 and, on the other hand, the total net
    the European Police Office (Europol);                               income received by him in the performance of other
                                                                        activities;
2. Orders the Council to pay two-thirds               of  the       4. Orders that there be added to that sum an amount
    applicant's costs as well as its own costs;                         corresponding to the loss resulting from the absence of
                                                                        automatic advancement in step;
3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French
    Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the                   5. Orders that interest on the total sums specified in
    Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great                   points 3 and 4 above be paid at the annual rate of
    Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.               4.5 % in respect of the period from 12 December 1996
                                                                        to the date when payment is received the applicant;
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
                                                                    6. Orders the Parliament to re-establish the applicant's
                                                                        pension rights in such a way as to make up for the
                                                                        difference between the pension rights to which he
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     would have been entitled if he had been reinstated on           2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
     1 January 1995 and the rights to which he is in fact
     entitled;                                                       (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
7. Orders that the sums due under point 6 above are to
     bear interest at the rate of 4.5 % from the date of their
     becoming payable;
8. Orders, before ruling on the amount of the                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     compensation payable by the defendant to the                                           of 4 May 1998
     applicant:
                                                                     in Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
     a) that the parties are to submit to the Court, within          Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
         three months after delivery of the present                                         Communities (1)
         judgment, the terms agreed by them in relation,             (Anti-dumping procedure Ð Interested party Ð Refusal Ð
         first, to the quantified amount of compensation             Action for annulment Ð Confirmatory act Ð Time-limit
         thus payable to the applicant and, second, in                                     Ð Inadmissibility)
         respect of the re-establishment of his pension
                                                                                (98/C 234/51)
         rights and the interest due in that regard;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
         and
     b) that, in the absence of such agreement, the parties          In Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
         are to send to the Court, within the same time-             Consommateurs (BEUC), established in Brussels,
         limit, their quantified submissions, stating the            represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, assisted by
         precise reasons for which they are unable to accept         Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with an
         the proposals made by the other party;                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde, against
9. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                     Nicholas Khan) Ð application for annulment of the
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                            Commission's decision of 3 February 1997 refusing to
                                                                     consider the applicant an interested party in the context of
                                                                     an anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of
                                                                     unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's
                                                                     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
                                                                     Turkey Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
                                                                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
                        of 9 June 1998                               Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl              4 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
and CPL Imperial 2 SpA v Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Post-clearance recovery of customs duties Ð Regulation              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
   (EEC) No 1697/79 Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)
                         (98/C 234/50)                               (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl,
established at Naples (Italy), and CPL Imperial 2 SpA,
established at Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in                                    of 11 June 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue
                                                                     in   Case    T-167/97:     Kyriakos Skrikas    v   European
Philippe II, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Parliament (1)
(Agents: initially, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Paolo
Stancanelli and, subsequently, Mr Stancanelli) Ð                     (Officials Ð Decision not to promote an official Ð Action
application for annulment of Commission Decision C(96)               for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð Act adversely affecting
2780 def of 8 October 1996 ordering the post-clearance               an official Ð Consideration of the comparative merits Ð
recovery of customs duties and for compensation for the              Interinstitutional transfer Ð Article 45(1) of the Staff
damage allegedly suffered by the applicants Ð the Court                                        Regulations)
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                                    (98/C 234/52)
President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                            (Language of the case: French)
given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                     In Case T-167/97: Kyriakos Skrikas, an official of the
1. Dismisses the applications;                                       European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented


title: Case C-520/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2010 — Lebara Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2010 — Lebara Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-520/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/29
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lebara Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a taxable person (‘Trader A’) sells phone cards representing the right to receive telecommunications services from that person, is Article 2(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted so as to mean that Trader A makes two supplies for VAT purposes: one at the time of the initial sale of the phone card by Trader A to another taxable person (‘Trader B’) and one at the time of its redemption (i.e. its use by a person — ‘the End User’ — to make telephone calls)?

               2.

               If so, how (consistently with EU VAT legislation) is VAT to be applied through the chain of supply where Trader A sells the phone card to Trader B, Trader B resells the phone card in Member State B and it is eventually purchased by the End User in Member State B, and the End User then uses the phone card to make telephone calls?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Joined Cases C-435/02 and C-103/03 (references for preliminary rulings from the Landgericht Essen and the Landgericht Hagen): Axel Springer AG v Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH & Co. Essen KG and Hans-Jürgen Weske (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Partnership law and company law — Directive 90/605/EEC amending the scope of Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC — Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) — Partnerships in the form of limited partnerships all of the fully liable partners of which are constituted as private limited liability companies GmbH and Co. KG — Publication of annual accounts — Right of third parties to consult those documents — Concept of a third party — Inclusion, inter alia, of competitors — Validity — Legal basis — Principles of freedom to pursue a trade or profession, freedom of the press and equal treatment)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/2

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 23 September 2004
   in Joined Cases C-435/02 and C-103/03 (references for preliminary rulings from the Landgericht Essen and the Landgericht Hagen): Axel Springer AG v Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH & Co. Essen KG and Hans-Jürgen Weske (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Partnership law and company law - Directive 90/605/EEC amending the scope of Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC - Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) - Partnerships in the form of limited partnerships all of the fully liable partners of which are constituted as private limited liability companies GmbH and Co. KG - Publication of annual accounts - Right of third parties to consult those documents - Concept of a third party - Inclusion, inter alia, of competitors - Validity - Legal basis - Principles of freedom to pursue a trade or profession, freedom of the press and equal treatment)
   (2004/C 314/03)
   Language of the cases: German
   In Joined Cases C-435/02 and C-103/03: references for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Essen (Germany) and the Landgericht Hagen (Germany), by orders of 25 November 2002 and 11 February 2003, registered at the Court on 2 December 2002 and 5 March 2003 respectively, in the proceedings brought by Axel Springer AG against Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH & Co. Essen KG (C-435/02) and Axel Springer AG against Hans-Jürgen Weske (C-103/03), - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 23 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               To the extent it follows from Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those Directives that any person may inspect the annual accounts and annual report of the types of partnerships referred to in it, without having to establish a right or an interest requiring to be protected, that directive could validly be adopted on the basis of Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC).

               2.

               Consideration of the first two questions referred in Case C-435/02 and the second and third questions referred in Case C-103/03 in the light of the general Community-law principles of freedom to pursue a trade or profession and of freedom of expression has not disclosed anything that is capable of affecting the validity of Directive 90/605.

               3.

               Consideration of the third question in Case C-435/02 and the fourth question in Case C-103/03 in the light of the principle of equal treatment has not disclosed anything that is capable of affecting the validity of Directive 90/605.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

      OJ C 12 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-42/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Home Credit Slovakia a.s. v Klára Bíróová

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Home Credit Slovakia a.s. v Klára Bíróová
   (Case C-42/15)
   (2015/C 155/10)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Dunajská Streda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

      Defendant: Klára Bíróová

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the concepts of ‘on paper’ and ‘another durable medium’ in Article 10(1) (in conjunction with Article 3(m)) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) be interpreted as extending to:

                           —

                           not only the text (physical, ‘hard copy’) of the document signed by the parties to the contract, which will contain the elements (information) required in Article 10(2)(a) to (v) of Directive 2008/48, but also

                           —

                           any other document to which that text refers and which under national law is a component of the contractual agreement (for instance, on ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor), even if such a document does not itself fulfil the requirement of being in ‘written form’ within the meaning of national law (for example, because it has not been signed by the parties to the contract)?

               2.

               Following the answer to Question 1:
               Must Article 10(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the relevant field, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice which:

                           —

                           requires that all the elements of the contract mentioned in Article 10(2)(a) to (v) be contained in one document which will fulfil the requirement of ‘written form’ in accordance with the law of the relevant Member State (that is, in principle in a document signed by the parties to the contract), and

                           —

                           does not attribute full legal effects to a consumer credit agreement, merely because some of the above elements are not contained in such a signed document, even if those elements (or part of them) are contained in a separate document (for instance, ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor), where (i) the written agreement itself refers to that document, (ii) the conditions for the incorporation of that document as a component of the agreement in accordance with national law are fulfilled, and (iii) the consumer credit agreement thus concluded would as a whole comply with the requirement of conclusion on ‘another durable medium’ mentioned in Article 10(1) of Directive 2008/48?

               3.

               Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’)

                           —

                           must be individualised in the agreement to show the terms of the specific agreement in question (in principle, by stating precise data (day, month, year) of the dates on which the individual instalments are due), or

                           —

                           is it sufficient if it is contained in the agreement by means of a general reference to objectively ascertainable parameters from which it is possible to derive it (for example, by the clause ‘monthly instalments are due at the latest by the 15th day of each calendar month’, ‘the first instalment is due one month from signature of the agreement and each further instalment is always due one month from the payment of the previous instalment’ or by another similar method)?

               4.

               If the interpretation in the second indent of Question 3 is correct:
               Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’) may also be contained in a separate document to which the agreement complying with the requirement of being on paper (within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the directive) refers, but which does not itself have to fulfil that requirement (that is, in principle it does not have to be signed by the parties to the contract; it may, for example, be ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor)?

               5.

               Must Article 10(2)(i) in conjunction with (h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           a credit agreement for a fixed duration, where the capital of the loan is repaid/amortised by individual instalments, does not have to contain, at the time of its conclusion, a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table does not have to be a component of the agreement), and that information may instead be contained in a schedule of instalments/amortisation table which the creditor provides to the debtor on request, or

                           —

                           Article 10(2)(h) guarantees the debtor the additional right to demand a statement of the amortisation table as at a certain specific date during the currency of the credit agreement, but that right does not relieve the parties to the contract of the obligation that the division of the individual instalments scheduled (payable in accordance with the credit agreement during its currency) into repayment of capital and payment of current interest and charges is already contained in the agreement itself, by a method individualised for the specific agreement concerned?

               6.

               If the interpretation in the first indent of Question 5 is correct:
               Does that question fall within the field of full harmonisation aimed at by Directive 2008/48, so that a Member State, in accordance with Article 22(1), may not require a credit agreement to contain a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table must be a component of the agreement)?

               7.

               Must the provisions of Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the field concerned, or Article 23 of the directive, in accordance with which penalties must be proportionate, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which the absence of most of the elements of a credit agreement required by Article 10(2) of the directive has the consequence that the credit granted is regarded as interest-free and free of charges, so that the debtor is obliged to repay the creditor solely the capital sum which he received under the agreement?


title: Case C-6/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 January 2011 — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 January 2011 — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents
   (Case C-6/11)
   2011/C 63/42
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daiichi Sankyo Company

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

      Questions referred

               1.

               Regulation 469/2009 (the Regulation) (1) recognises amongst the other purposes identified in the recitals, the need for the grant of an SPC by each of the Member States of the Community to holders of national or European patents to be under the same conditions, as indicated in recitals 7 and 8. In the absence of Community harmonisation of patent law, what is meant in Article 3(a) of the Regulation by ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ and what are the criteria for deciding this?

               2.

               In a case like the present one involving a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient, are there further or different criteria for determining whether or not ‘the product is protected by a basic patent’ according to Art 3(a) of the Regulation and, if so, what are those further or different criteria?

               3.

               In order for a combination of active ingredients cited in an authorisation for placing a medicinal product on the market to be the subject of an SPC, and having regard to the wording to Article 4 of the Regulation, is the condition that the product be ‘protected by a basic patent’ within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the Regulation satisfied if the product infringes the basic patent under national law?

               4.

               In order for a combination of active ingredients cited in an authorisation for placing a medicinal product on the market to be the subject of an SPC, and having regard to the wording to Article 4 of the Regulation, does satisfaction of the condition that the product be ‘protected by a basic patent’ within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the Regulation depend upon whether the basic patent contains one (or more) claims which specifically mention a combination of (1) a class of compounds which includes one of the active ingredients in the said product and (2) a class of further active ingredients which may be unspecified but which includes the other active ingredient in the said product; or is it sufficient that the basic patent contains one (or more) claims which (1) claim a class of compounds which includes one of the active ingredients in the said product and (2) use specific language which as a matter of national law extends the scope of protection to include the presence of further other unspecified active ingredients including the other active ingredient in the said product?

      (1)  OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Case C-106/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Eneco Holding NV

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Eneco Holding NV
   (Case C-106/12)
   2012/C 151/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden

      Respondent: Eneco Holding NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 345 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’ also include the rule in respect of the absolute ban on privatisation which is at issue in the present case, as set out in the Besluit aandelen netbeheerders (Decree on shares in system operators), in conjunction with Article 93 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity) and Article 85 of the Gaswet (Law on gas), under which shares in a system operator can be transferred only within the circle of public authorities?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does this then have the effect that the rules relating to the free movement of capital are not applicable to the group ban, or at least that a review of the group ban in the light of the rules relating to the free movement of capital is not required?

               3.

               Are the objectives which also form the basis of the Won (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (Law on independent network operation), that is to say, to achieve transparency in the energy market and to prevent distortions of competition by opposing cross-subsidisation in the broad sense (including strategic information exchange), purely economic interests, or can they also be regarded as interests of a non-economic nature, in the sense that in certain circumstances, as compelling reasons in the general interest, they may constitute a justification for a restriction of the free movement of capital?


title: Case T-511/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Corra González and Others v SRB

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/19

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Corra González and Others v SRB
   (Case T-511/17)
   (2017/C 357/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: José María Francisco Corra González (Madrid, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: C. de Santiago Álvarez and J. Redondo Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

               —

               consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-432/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Pavlína Baštová (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Concept of ‘supply of services for consideration’ — Supply of a horse by a taxable person to the organiser of horse races — Assessment of the consideration — Right to deduct expenses linked to the preparation of the taxable person’s horses for the races — General costs linked to the overall economic activity — Annex III, point 14 — Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the use of sporting facilities — Applicability to the operation of racing stables — Transaction consisting of a single supply or several independent supplies)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Pavlína Baštová
   (Case C-432/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Concept of ‘supply of services for consideration’ - Supply of a horse by a taxable person to the organiser of horse races - Assessment of the consideration - Right to deduct expenses linked to the preparation of the taxable person’s horses for the races - General costs linked to the overall economic activity - Annex III, point 14 - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the use of sporting facilities - Applicability to the operation of racing stables - Transaction consisting of a single supply or several independent supplies))
   (2017/C 014/18)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Defendant: Pavlína Baštová

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that the supply of a horse by its owner, who is a taxable person for value added tax purposes, to the organiser of a horse race for the purpose of the horse’s participation in that race does not constitute a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of that provision where it does not give rise to a payment awarded for participation or any other direct remuneration and where only the owners of horses which are placed in the race receive a prize, even if that prize is determined in advance. On the other hand, such a supply of a horse for the purposes of its participation in the race constitutes a supply of services for consideration where it gives rise to the payment, by the organiser, of remuneration irrespective of whether or not the horse in question is placed in the race.

               2.

               Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that a taxable person, who breeds and trains his own race horses and those of other owners, has the right to deduct input value added tax on the transactions relating to the preparation for horse races of his own horses and the participation of his own horses in races, on the ground that the costs pertaining to those transactions are part of the general costs linked to his economic activity, provided that the costs incurred in each of those transactions have a direct and immediate link with that overall activity. That may be the case if the costs thus incurred pertain to race horses actually intended for sale or if the participation of those horses in races is, from an objective point of view, a means of promoting the economic activity, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.
               In a situation where such a right to deduct exists, any prize won by the taxable person on account of the placing of one of his horses in a race is not to be included in the taxable amount for value added tax purposes.

               3.

               Article 98 of the Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with point 14 of Annex III thereto, must be interpreted to the effect that the reduced rate of value added tax may not be applied to a single composite supply of services, made up of several components relating, inter alia, to the training of horses, the use of sporting facilities and the stabling, feeding and other care provided to the horses where the use of the sporting facilities, within the meaning of point 14 of Annex III to that directive, and the training of the horses constitute two components of that composite supply having equal status or where the training of the horses constitutes the main component of that supply, this being a matter for the referring court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/63
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the                       Removal from the register of Case T-30/98 (1)
Commission infringed both Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, since it failed to take into                                    (2002/C 144/122)
account, or incorrectly assessed, the nature and actions of the
applicant undertaking and did not establish that the applicant
participated in the alleged meetings or the alleged collusive                               (Language of the Case: English)
arrangements within the Spanish market or in the agreements
and concerted practices as a whole, which are described in the
contested decision.
                                                                          By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-30/98:
It is stated in that regard that the applicant is a small family-         Dr. Peter Stott v Conseil de l’Union européenne and Com-
style undertaking which distributes and processes carbonless              mission of the European Communities.
copy paper and that it neither manufactured nor exported to
markets other than the Spanish market during the period of
the infringement. Furthermore, attention is drawn to its                  (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
modest economic size and the limited scale of its business as
compared with the other parties alleged to be involved.
As regards the fine imposed, it is submitted that quantification
thereof involved:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-370/00 (1)
—     breach of the principles of proportionality and equal
      treatment;                                                                                (2002/C 144/123)
—     incorrect determination of the period of infringement;                                (Language of the Case: English)
—     failure to take account of the mitigating circumstances
      attendant upon the applicant’s situation.
                                                                          By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            T-370/00: N.V. Master Foods S. A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/121)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-42/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/124)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-42/01:
European Communities.
                                                                          Syndicat des employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case T-32/01: Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.4.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 108/27
The applicant bases its claim in essence on alleged infringement           The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the procedure laid down by law in Article 88 EC and in
Regulation No 659/1999 (1) as regards existing aid schemes,                —     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
and consequently pleads violation of the principles of legal                     initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and the                     with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 11/1993;
right to a fair hearing.
It maintains in that regard that the Commission has since                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
1994 been aware of the existence of the Norma Foral in
question, the provisions of which as a whole, and not
merely Article 14, were the subject of a complaint seeking a
declaration that it was incompatible with the common market                Pleas in law and main arguments
under Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                           The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
As a result of that complaint, the Commission proceeded to
                                                                           down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 11/1993 of the
carry out a preliminary State aid investigation and sent a copy
                                                                           Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa of 26 June 1993 concerning
of the complaint in question to the Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                           urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the
According to the applicant, the Commission at no time
                                                                           promotion of economic activity, which provides for an
indicated that it was initiating, or had initiated, the formal
                                                                           exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
                                                                           undertakings.
The fact that, in November 2000, the Commission proceeded
to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for in Article             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
88(2) with regard to one of the articles of Norma Foral                    advanced in Case T-30/01.
No 18/1993 necessarily means, in the applicant’s view,
that the Commission has failed to comply with the legally
established procedure for investigating and assessing existing
aid schemes.
The applicant considers that, if the Commission has any
doubts either as to whether the tax exemption provided for
may constitute aid or as to its compatibility with the common
market, it cannot categorise that exemption as new aid but
must classify it as existing aid and should proceed, in
accordance with the principle of sound administration, to                  Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
analyse and scrutinise the same in the context of the constant             Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
review of aid systems of that type provided for in Article 88(1)             against the Commission of the European Communities
EC.
                                                                                (Case T-32/01)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83
    of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
                                                                                (2001/C 108/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
                          (Case T-31/01)                                   Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, established
                                                                           in Bizkaia (Spain), represented by Marta Morales Isasi and
                         (2001/C 108/49)                                   Ignacio Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández, lawyers.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio                        initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa,                          with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 5/1993;
established in Gipuzkoa (Spain), represented by Marta Morales
Isasi and Ignacio Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández, lawyers.                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 5/1993 of the                   The applicant, an official classified in grade C 1, step 8, is
Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia of 24 June 1993 concerning              challenging the refusal of the selection board in internal
urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the                  competition COM/PB/99 for movement from category C to
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an                    category B to admit her to the oral test in that competition.
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.                                                            She points out in that regard that, by letter of 8 March 2000,
                                                                         the chairman of the selection board informed the applicant
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 that she had not been admitted to the oral test because of her
advanced in Case T-30/01.                                                marks in the written test, which, despite being higher than the
                                                                         minimum required (30 out of 50), were not such as to place
                                                                         her within the 170 best candidates, who were the only ones
                                                                         permitted to take part in the oral test. In order to be included
                                                                         amongst those 170 best candidates, it was necessary to obtain
                                                                         a mark totalling at least 30.25.
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                 In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
                         (Case T-34/01)                                  —     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                               reasons and of the general principle of transparency. The
                        (2001/C 108/51)                                        applicant states in that connection that the principle of
                                                                               transparency precludes a refusal to provide a candidate in
                   (Language of the case: French)                              a competition with documents and answers relating to
                                                                               matters outside the ambit of an assessment of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      comparative merits of the candidates;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria                   —     infringement of the rules governing the work done by the
Roccato (Mrs Pinson), represented by Georges Vandersanden                      selection board, and the commission of a manifest error
and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                                       of assessment in the present case;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
                                                                               misuse of powers in the present case. In that regard, the
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                               applicant, who reached the end of her career bracket on
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
                                                                               1 February 1988, speculates that the reason for her
      from the oral test in the competition;
                                                                               exclusion from the oral test may lie in the fact that the
—     annul all steps taken and to be taken in the competition;                selection board in the competition may have been biased
                                                                               in favour of younger officials having, in consequence,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    longer-term career prospects than she.


title: Case T-269/99: Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/29
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the               Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Direcks Service
proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the                Station Bocholtz B.V. against the Commission of the
Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1), to the extent to                                  European Communities
which that regulation affects the applicants — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                                        (Case T-236/99)
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy,
J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
                                                                                (2000/C 47/50)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December
1999, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                         European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Direcks
                                                                        Service Station Bocholtz B.V., of Bocholtz (Netherlands),
                                                                        represented by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
(1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.98.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                             Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Garage Bernsteyn                        demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                         decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
                                ties                                         to be fair and reasonable;
                         (Case T-235/99)                                — make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
                                                                             the law.
                          (2000/C 47/49)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               T-210/99.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Garage                       (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
Bernsteyn B.V., of Berg en Terblijt (Netherlands), represented
by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
    Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
                                                                        Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against Commission of the
    demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
                                                                                European Communities
    decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
    to be fair and reasonable;
                                                                                (Case T-269/99)
— make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
    the law.                                                                                (2000/C 47/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
T-210/99.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                        1999 by Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa
                                                                        (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña
                                                                        Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively,
                                                                        Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/30                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación
                                                                         Foral de Alava against Commission of the European
— Annul the Commission decision of 14 July 1999 in so far                                             Communities
    as it classifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 87
    EC the tax credit provided for in Norma Foral de Gipuzkoa
    (Gipuzkoa Regional Law) No 7/1997 of 22 December                                                (Case T-271/99)
    1997;
                                                                                (2000/C 47/52)
— Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                         1999 by Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia
                                                                         — Diputación Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain), represented by
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that, in the             Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of
contested decision, the Commission:                                      the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, of Cuatrecasas
                                                                         Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.
— misinterprets the concept of State aid appearing in
    Article 87(1) EC in taking the view that the tax credit              The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    provided for in the abovementioned Norma Foral de
    Gipuzkoa constitutes a measure of a selective nature and             — Annul the Commission decision of 14 July 1999 in so far
    therefore State aid; in the applicant’s view, the tax credit              as it classifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 87
    constitutes a measure of a general nature since it applies to             EC the tax credit provided for in Norma Foral de Alava
    all economic operators alike, provided that they meet the                 (Alava Regional Law) No 22/1994 of 20 December 1994,
    requirements laid down in that instrument, which are                      as amended;
    objective and non-discriminatory; even if the measure in
    question were in some degree selective, it would be                  — Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
    justified by the nature of the system, since the latter is
    non-discriminatory in its scope, being based on objective
    and horizontal conditions or criteria, and it also contributes       Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
    to the efficiency of the tax system of which it forms part;
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
— misinterprets Article 87 EC in considering that State aid              used in T-269/99.
    exists where there has been no proof of distortion of
    competition or of any impact on trade between Member
    States, as required by that provision;
— mistakenly takes the view that the Spanish authorities
    infringed the obligation of notification laid down in
    Article 88(3) EC;
                                                                         Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio His-
                                                                         tórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputación
— has misused its powers by using the State aid procedure                Foral de Bizkaia against Commission of the European
    instead of the procedure provided for by the Community                                            Communities
    legislature (tax harmonisation), under which its powers are
    much more limited since they are shared with the Council
                                                                                (Case T-272/99)
    of the European Union;
                                                                                (2000/C 47/53)
— has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons since it
    has not clarified the points of fact and of law which
    prompted it to classify the contested tax measure as State
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
    aid, within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                         1999 by Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldun-
                                                                         dia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (Spain), represented by


title: Case T-139/06: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures — Request for payment — Competence of the Commission — Jurisdiction of the General Court)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission
   (Case T-139/06) (1)

   (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures - Request for payment - Competence of the Commission - Jurisdiction of the General Court)
   2011/C 347/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and S. Gasri and subsequently, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Banks and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, T. Harris and C. Murrell, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 659 Final of 1 March 2006 seeking payment of the periodic penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-268/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court (Ireland)) — Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment in the public sector — Employment conditions — Pay and pensions — Renewal of fixed-term contracts for a period of up to eight years — Procedural autonomy — Direct effect)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court (Ireland)) — Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport
   (Case C-268/06) (1)

   (Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment in the public sector - Employment conditions - Pay and pensions - Renewal of fixed-term contracts for a period of up to eight years - Procedural autonomy - Direct effect)
   (2008/C 142/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Labour Court
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Impact

      Defendants: Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Labour Court — Interpretation of Clause 4(1) (principle of non-discrimination) and Clause 5(1) (measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Action seeking to rely on the direct effect of those provisions — Lack of jurisdiction, under national law, of the court seised — Jurisdiction under Community law, in particular pursuant to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Community law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, requires that a specialised court which is called upon, under the, albeit optional, jurisdiction conferred on it by the legislation transposing Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to hear and determine a claim based on an infringement of that legislation, must also have jurisdiction to hear and determine an applicant's claims arising directly from the directive itself in respect of the period between the deadline for transposing the directive and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force if it is established that the obligation on that applicant to bring, at the same time, a separate claim based directly on the directive before an ordinary court would involve procedural disadvantages liable to render excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred on him by Community law. It is for the national court to undertake the necessary checks in that regard.

               2.

               Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to be able to rely upon it before a national court; that is not the case, however, as regards Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement.

               3.

               Article 10 EC, the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as meaning that an authority of a Member State acting in its capacity as a public employer may not adopt measures contrary to the objective pursued by that directive and the framework agreement on fixed-term work as regards prevention of the abusive use of fixed-term contracts, which consist in the renewal of such contracts for an unusually long term in the period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force.

               4.

               In so far as the applicable national law contains a rule that precludes the retrospective application of legislation unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary, a national court hearing a claim based on an infringement of a provision of national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 is required, under Community law, to give that provision retrospective effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed only if that national legislation includes an indication of that nature capable of giving that provision retrospective effect.

               5.

               Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that employment conditions within the meaning of that clause encompass conditions relating to pay and to pensions which depend on the employment relationship, to the exclusion of conditions relating to pensions arising under a statutory social-security scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-671/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — IPK International v Commission (Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project — Repayment of the amounts recovered — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the earlier decision cancelling the assistance — Compensatory interest — Default interest — Calculation)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — IPK International v Commission
   (Case T-671/11) (1)

   (Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project - Repayment of the amounts recovered - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the earlier decision cancelling the assistance - Compensatory interest - Default interest - Calculation)
   2013/C 147/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 October 2011 (ENTR/R1/HHO/lsa — entre.r.l(2011)1183091) to pay to the applicant a total amount of EUR 720 579,90, including the sum of EUR 158 618,27 by way of compensatory interest

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 14 October 2011 (ENTR/R1/HHO/lsa — entre.r.l(2011)1183091) in so far as it limits the amount of interest to be paid to IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH to EUR 158 618,27;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2005 in Case T-112/03 L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark FLEXI AIR — Earlier word mark FLEX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Request for proof of genuine use — Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(2)(a)(ii) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 March 2005
   in Case T-112/03 L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for word mark FLEXI AIR - Earlier word mark FLEX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(2)(a)(ii) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 132/45)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-112/03: L'Oréal SA, established in Paris (France), represented X. Buffet Delmas d'Autane, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Filtenborg, S. Laitinen and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Revlon (Suisse) SA, established in Schlieren (Switzerland) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2003 (Case R 396/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between L'Oréal SA and Revlon (Suisse) SA — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case T-151/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/32

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission
   (Case T-151/11)
   2011/C 145/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Telefónica de España Madrid, Spain and Telefónica Móviles España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2010;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present case is directed against the Commission decision of 20 July 2010, concerning the aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE) (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 9) declaring compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU the new financing model for the public television broadcasting body Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española introduced by Law 8/2009 of 28 August 2009.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, in so far as the Commission has failed to initiate the procedure provided for in that provision in relation to the separation of the financing from the contested measure as a whole.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU, in so far as the Commission establishes the separation of the financing of the measure as a whole and incorrectly defines as new aid only the additional financing. Acting in this way, the Commission does not comply with the case-law or the Commission’s decision-making practice

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 56 TFEU, since the decision does not provide any explanation as to how it reached the conclusion that the three fiscal measures introduced or amended by Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Law 8/2009 are dissociable from RTVE’s current system of financing.

               4.

               Error of law by dissociating the source of financing of the measure, in so far as the incompatibility of the sources of finance with Community law must necessarily involve its incompatibility with the rules on State aid. The applicant asserts in that regard that the contested decision declares compatible an aid linked to financing that the Commission, in parallel proceedings, has held to be contrary to European Union law.

               5.

               Infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU and/or Article 256 TFEU on the ground that the statement of reasons is inadequate as regards the absence of overcompensation and the impact of the measure on competition in the internal market. In particular, the decision fails to take account of the fact that RTVE’s actual future costs will be less than the costs incurred in the past and declares compatible with the internal market a measure which guarantees protection ‘against the fluctuations in revenue in the advertising market’, in spite of the fact that there is no commercial risk.


title: Case C-286/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Latvijas propāna gāze’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 2711 — Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons — Material giving the essential character — Liquefied petroleum gas)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Latvijas propāna gāze’
   (Case C-286/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 2711 - Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons - Material giving the essential character - Liquefied petroleum gas))
   (2016/C 260/14)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant: SIA ‘Latvijas propāna gāze’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Rules 2(b) and 3(b) of the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, respectively, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the essential character of a gas mixture, such as the liquefied petroleum gas at issue in the main proceedings, is determined by all the components of that mixture together, so that no component may be identified as the factor giving it its essential character and, in any event, the exact quantity of each of the components of the liquefied petroleum gas at issue may not be determined, a presumption that the factor which gives the goods their essential character, within the meaning of rule 3(b) of those general rules, is the substance which is present in the greatest proportion in the mixture must not be used.

               2.

               That combined nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that a liquefied petroleum gas, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, containing 0,32 % methane, ethane and ethylene, 58,32 % propane and propylene and no more than 39,99 % butane and butylene, and in respect of which it may not be determined which of its constituent substances gives it its essential character, comes under the sub-heading 2711 19 00, as ‘Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, Liquefied, Other’.

               3.

               Article 218(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that it does not follow from that provision that a declarant of liquefied petroleum gas, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is under an obligation to indicate precisely the percentage amount of the substance present in the greatest quantity in that liquefied petroleum gas.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case F-103/07: Action brought on 5 October 2007 — Duta v Court of Justice

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/45

         Action brought on 5 October 2007 — Duta v Court of Justice
   (Case F-103/07)
   (2007/C 315/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Krieg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decisions;

               —

               refer the case back to the competent authority;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By his action, the applicant challenges the rejection of his candidature for a post of Legal Secretary to a judge of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. The rejection took place by circular letter of 24 January 2007, although the judge in question had previously shown a lively interest in the applicant's candidature.
   The applicant pleads, first, the nullity of the decision to reject his complaint. It was dealt with by the ‘Committee of the Court of First Instance with power to determine complaints’ the composition of which does not meet the requirements for a fair hearing as defined by Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The members of the Court of First Instance sitting as that committee cannot determine with complete impartiality cases concerning one of their colleagues.
   Secondly, the applicant pleads that he was the victim of discrimination. The judge in question did not exercise his or her discretion reasonably.
   Finally, the applicant submits that, in any event, the contested decisions infringe the general principles of transparency, good faith and the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-46/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 August 2007 — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission (Action for annulment — Implementation of the Top Level Domain eu — Registration of the domain name galileo.eu — Use restricted to the institutions and bodies of the Community — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 August 2007 — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission
   (Case T-46/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Implementation of the Top Level Domain ‘eu’ - Registration of the domain name ‘galileo.eu’ - Use restricted to the institutions and bodies of the Community - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 247/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: E. Montaguti and T. Jürgensen, then by: G. Braun and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the Commission's decision to register ‘galileo.eu’ as an eu. Top Level Domain reserved for use by the Community institutions and bodies, pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the ‘.eu’ Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case F-59/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014  — Rouffaud v EEAS (Civil Service — Auxiliary member of contract staff — Reclassification of the contract — Pre-litigation procedure — Rule that the complaint must be consistent with the action — Amendment of the grounds of challenge in the case)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Rouffaud v EEAS
   (Case F-59/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Auxiliary member of contract staff - Reclassification of the contract - Pre-litigation procedure - Rule that the complaint must be consistent with the action - Amendment of the grounds of challenge in the case))
   2014/C 159/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Thierry Rouffaud (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented initially by: A. Coolen, É. Marchal, S. Orlandi and D. Abreu Caldas, and subsequently by: S. Orlandi and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have his successive fixed-term employment contracts reclassified as a contract of indefinite duration and to have his period completed as an auxiliary member of the contract staff recognised as a period of service completed as a member of the contract staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Rouffard to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013, p. 14.