title: Case T-99/00: Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper against the European Parliament

text:
C 163/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia Vakalo-                     Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper
poulou against the Commission of the European Com-                                       against the European Parliament
                              munities
                                                                                (Case T-99/00)
                           (Case T-97/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/68)
                          (2000/C 163/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper, residing in Madrid,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
European Communities on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia
Vakalopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul the appointing authority’s decision of 9 June 1999,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   inasmuch as it provides that the date from which the
                                                                              applicant’s promotion to grade A 4 is to take effect is to
— annul the Commission’s decision not to extend the appli-                    be 1 January 1998 and not 1 January 1997;
    cant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff beyond
    30 September 1999;                                                    — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs in any
                                                                              event.
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the remuner-
    ation which she should have received since 1 October
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    1999, subject to deduction there from of any allowances
    and remuneration received;
                                                                          In consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
                                                                          18 March 1999 in Case C-304/97 P, which annulled the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          applicant’s appointment to the post of head of division in the
                                                                          Parliament’s Information Office in Madrid, he was reclassified
                                                                          in grade A 5 with effect from 1 April 1995. By the contested
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           decision, the appointing authority promoted him to grade A 4
                                                                          with effect from 1 January 1998. Consequently, the applicant’s
                                                                          application for the post of head of the Information Office in
The applicant states that the Commission had decided, in                  Madrid could not be accepted, since he did not possess the
consequence of an agreement concluded with regard to                      two years’ seniority in the requisite grade as at 7 May 1999,
contractual staff in the context of the harmonisation of                  that date being the deadline for the submission of applications
technical arrangements, to grant contracts to certain members             for the post in question.
of the temporary staff on condition that those persons had
submitted applications to participate in an open competition              The applicant disputes the date from which the contested
or fulfilled the criteria for admission to a future competition.          decision is to take effect. On a correct application of Article
                                                                          45 of the Staff Regulations, and of the general provisions for
                                                                          giving effect thereto, as provided for by Article 110 of the Staff
In the applicant’s view, she fulfilled the conditions prescribed          Regulations, he should have been appointed to grade A 4 by
by the agreement and was thus entitled to an extension of her             1 January 1997 at the latest.
contract. The contested decision was thus adopted in breach
of the principle of equality of treatment between members of
the temporary staff.                                                      In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, that
                                                                          the defendant has infringed the third and fourth paragraphs of
                                                                          Article 24 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and that it
Moreover, the Commission has infringed Article 25 of the                  has disregarded several general principles of law, including
Staff Regulations and the principle of the right to a fair hearing,       inter alia the principle of equal treatment as between officials.
in that it has provided no explanation enabling the applicant             He observes that the appointing authority erred in its revision
to understand the reasons for which her contract was not                  of his career and that it failed to take adequate account of the
extended.                                                                 mobility shown by him as head of division in an external
                                                                          office.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2000 in Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux v European Parliament (Officials — Course of thalassotherapy treatment — Refusal of prior authorisation — Statement of reasons)

text:
24.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 176/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 May 2000
                           of 6 April 2000                                 in Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
in Case T-188/98: Aldo Kuijer v Council of the European                    (Officials — Course of thalassotherapy treatment — Refusal
                                Union (1)                                         of prior authorisation — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/36)
(Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public
access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for                                   (Language of the case: French)
access — Protection of the public interest — International
  relations — Obligation to state reasons — Partial access)                In Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux, an official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, residing at Mensdorf (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                           by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias
                           (2000/C 176/35)                                 Hardt, v European Parliament (Agent: M. Moore) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements
                                                                           Office of 6 March 1998 rejecting the applicant’s request for
                                                                           prior authorisation to undergo a course of thermal treatment
                                                                           — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of:
                     (Language of the case: English)                       A. Potocki, sitting as a single judge; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           11 May 2000, in which it:
In Case T-188/98 Aldo Kuijer, residing in Utrecht (Nether-                 1. Dismisses the application;
lands), represented by O.W. Brouwer and F.P. Louis, of the
Brussels Bar, and D. Curtin, Professor at the University of                2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Utrecht, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe v Council of the                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
European Union, (Agents: M. Bauer and M. Bishop) —
application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 28 Sep-
tember 1998, as amended by its decision of 18 May 1999,
refusing the applicant access to certain documents — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
6 April 2000, in which it:
                                                                                of 28 January 2000
1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 28 September 1998, as                  in Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Con-
     amended by the decision of 18 May 1999, refusing the applicant        sommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
     access to certain reports drawn up by the Centre for Information,                             Communities (1)
     Discussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain reports of joint
     missions or reports of missions undertaken by Member States           (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association —
     sent to the Centre, and to the list of contact persons in the         Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Application
     Member States involved with asylum cases;                             for annulment — Non-adoption of definitive regulation —
                                                                                No need to adjudicate)
2. Orders the Council to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its                                 (2000/C 176/37)
     own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  In Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Consomma-
                                                                           teurs (BEUC), established in Brussels, represented by B. O’Con-
                                                                           nor, Solicitor, and B. Garcı́a Porras, of the Bar of Salamanca
                                                                           (Spain), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde,
                                                                           supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                           Ireland (Agent: M. Ewing) v Commission of the European


title: Case T-337/02: Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
selection board in competition COM/R/A/2000 refusing to
include her name on the reserve list.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant relies on four pleas             The present action seeks the annulment of the decision by
in law. First, she alleges breach of the principle of non-               which the applicant was notified of her non-admission to the
discrimination, breach of essential procedural requirements,             tests in competition COM/A/10/01 because she was beyond
infringement of the rules governing the organisation of tests            the age-limit provided for in the notice of competition.
and infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations. In the applicant’s view, the selection board was
not composed of a stable number of members and did not                   The pleas in law and main arguments have previously been
carry out its work impartially.                                          put forward in T-219/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission ( 1).
The applicant in her second plea in law alleges infringement
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 C 233, p. 30.
of the competition notice.
Third, she alleges breach of the interest of the service,
infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants of the European Communities and manifest
error of assessment.
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of equal           Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI
treatment between men and women, breach of the equal                     association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga
opportunity policy, breach of positive actions and breach of                        against Council of the European Union
the principle according to which the administration is bound
by the acts which it adopts.
                                                                                (Case T-338/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-337/02)                                  Communities on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association,
                                                                         Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga, established in
                          (2003/C 7/47)                                  Baiona (France) and in Donostia (Spain), Araitz Zubimendi
                                                                         Izaga, residing in Hernani (Spain), and Aritza Galarraga,
                                                                         residing in Senpere (France), represented by Didier Rouget,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        avocat.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz                    —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
Herrera, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-                    EUR 1 000 000 to the SEGI association and
Gallardo and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.                                   EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz
                                                                               Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                               rate of 4,5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission refusing Olga                       judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
      Lutz’s application to take part in COM/A/10/01; and                      payment is effected;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 1999 in Case C-54/95: Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of accounts - EAGGF - Disallowance of expenditure - 1991 financial year)

text:
27.3.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 86/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  justified on grounds of public policy, public security or
                    of 19 January 1999                               public health preclude legislation which, with certain
                                                                     exceptions, in particular where there are family reasons,
in Case C-348/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            requires a Member State's courts to order expulsion for
the Arios Pagos): criminal proceedings against Donatella             life from its territory of nationals of other Member States
                          Calfa (1)                                  found guilty on that territory of the offences of obtaining
                                                                     and being in posession of drugs for their own personal
(Public policy Ð Tourist from another Member State Ð                 use.
Conviction for drug use Ð Exclusion for life from a
                 Member State's territory)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                       (1999/C 86/01)
               (Language of the case: Greek)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 January 1999
In Case C-348/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arios Pagos (Supreme Court of              in Case C-54/95: Federal Republic of Germany v.
Cassation) (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the                          Commission of the European Communities (1)
criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Donatella Calfa Ð on the interpretation of Articles 7, 8(1)          (Clearance of accounts Ð EAGGF Ð Disallowance of
and (2), 8a(1), 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and                                expenditure Ð 1991 financial year)
relevant Community directives relating to freedom of                                         (1999/C 86/02)
movement for persons and freedom to provide services Ð
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann (Presidents of                              (Language of the case: German)
Chambers), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R.
Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 January 1999,                       published in the European Court Reports)
in which it has ruled:
                                                                     In Case C-54/95: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of             Ernst Röder and Gereon Thiele) v. Commission of the
Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on                  European Communities (Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt)
the coordination of special measures concerning the                  Ð application for annulment of Commission Decision
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are                94/871/EC of 21 December 1994 on the clearance of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.3.1999
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the            composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the
expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural                    Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee                       Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and
Section (OJ L 352, 31.12.1994, p. 82), inasmuch as it                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
refuses to charge to the EAGGF the sum of DEM                        Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
116 633 582,10 Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                 judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it has ruled:
of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
(Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von             1. Standard bank conditions, in so far as they enable
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                banks, in contracts for the opening of a
judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:                                 current-account credit facility, to change the interest
                                                                          rate at any time by reason of changes occurring in the
                                                                          money market, and to do so by means of a notice
1. Dismisses the action.                                                  displayed on their premises or in such manner as they
                                                                          consider most appropriate, do not have as their object
                                                                          or effect the restriction of competition within the
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
     costs.
                                                                     2. Standard bank conditions relating to the provision of
(1) OJ C 137, 3.6.1995.                                                   general guarantees to secure current-account credit
                                                                          facilities, which derogate from the general law
                                                                          concerning guarantees, such as the rules in the main
                                                                          proceedings, are not, taken as a whole, liable to affect
                                                                          trade between Member States within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     3. The application of the abovementioned standard bank
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                   conditions does not constitute abuse of a dominant
                      of 21 January 1999                                  position within the meaning of Article 86 of the
                                                                          Treaty.
in Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Carlo
                                                                     (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
Bagnasco and Others v. Banca Popolare di Novara soc.
coop. arl (BPN) (C-215/96), Cassa di Risparmio di
        Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige) (C-216/96) (1)
(Competition Ð Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty Ð
Standard bank conditions for current-account credit
    facilities and for the provision of general guarantees)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (1999/C 86/03)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 January 1999
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     in    Case     C-150/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
           published in the European Court Reports)                                      Directive 85/337/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/04)
In Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96: references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribu-                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
nale di Genova (Genoa District Court) (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Carlo Bagnasco and Others and Banca
Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl (BPN) (C-215/96),                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige)                             published in the European Court Reports)
(C-216/96) Ð on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty in relation to certain standard bank
conditions which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana                  In Case C-150/97: Commission of the European
imposes on its members when contracts are concluded for              Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v.
current-account credit facilities and for the provision of           Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Pedro
general guarantees Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      Portugal) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing


title: Case C-89/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate (Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market — Simple or compound interest — National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-89/14) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market - Simple or compound interest - National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force))
   (2015/C 354/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A2A SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999, do not preclude national legislation, such as Article 24(4) of Decree-Law No 185/2008 of 29 November 2008, on urgent measures to support families, work, employment and business, and to restructure the national strategic framework to combat the crisis, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 2 of 28 January 2009, which, by means of a reference to Regulation No 794/2004, provides for the application of compound interest to the recovery of State aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery was adopted and notified to the Member State concerned before that regulation entered into force.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2000 in Case T-130/99: David Crabbe v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (Officials — Establishment of linguist posts — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 355/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.12.2000
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            aid illegal and incompatible with the common market and
at the Chambers of J. Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, against Com-                 order its recovery — the Court of First Instance (Third
mission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
and N. Khan) — application for compensation to make good                  President, J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P. Men-
the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the adoption            gozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2529/97 of 16 December                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 September 2000, in
1997 imposing provisional anti-dumping and countervailing                 which it:
duties on certain imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originat-
ing in Norway (OJ 1997 L 346, p. 63) — the Court of First                 1.    Dismisses the application;
Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 October 2000, in
which it:                                                                 (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.99.
1.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant NOK 431 000;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three
      quarters of the applicant’s costs;
4.    Orders the applicant to bear one quarter of its own costs.              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ No C 160 of 5.6.99.
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                                                                          in Case T-130/99: David Crabbe v European Centre for
                                                                           the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Establishment of linguist posts — No need to
                                                                                adjudicate)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 355/50)
                      of 29 September 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-55/99: Confederación Española de Transporte
de Mercancı́as (CETM) v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                 In Case T-130/99: David Crabbe, an official at the European
                                                                          Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDE-
(State aid — Aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the               FOP), residing in Thessaloniki, Greece, represented by
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) —                      M.-A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
Statement of reasons — Obligation to recover aid —                        Luxembourg at the offices of Société de gestion fiduciaire
Legitimate expectations of recipients — Principle of pro-                 SARL, 13, avenue du Bois, against European Centre for
                            portionality)                                 the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (Agent:
                                                                          B. Wägenbaur) — application for the annulment of CEDEFOP’s
                                                                          implied decision not to create linguist posts in its organisation
                          (2000/C 355/49)                                 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                          R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
                                                                          Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       gave a judgment on 3 October 2000, the operative part of
                                                                          which is as follows:
In Case T-55/99: Confederación Española de Transporte de
Mercancı́as (CETM) having its registered office in Madrid,                1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.
represented by J. Pérez Villar, of the Madrid Bar, 322 Calle
López de Hoyos, Madrid, against Commission of the European               2.    CEDEFOP is ordered to pay the costs.
Communities (Agents: J. Guerra Fernández and D. Triantafyllou
) — application for annulment of Commission Decision
98/693/EC of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish Plan Renove               (1) OJ No C 226 of 7.8.99.
Industrial system of aid for the purchase of commercial
vehicles (August 1994 — December 1996) (OJ 1998 L 329,
p. 23) in that Articles 3 and 4 of that decision declare certain


title: Case T-204/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (COLOUR FOCUS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOR FOCUS — Earlier Community word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Abuse of right)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (COLOUR FOCUS)
   (Case T-204/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLOR FOCUS - Earlier Community word mark FOCUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the marks - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Abuse of right)
   2012/C 366/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and S. Abel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Schäffner, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by R. Schweizer and J. Berlinger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 238/2009-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case F-86/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Voslamber v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Social Security — Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Spouse of a former official — Circumscribed powers — Article 13 of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/75

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Voslamber v Commission
   (Case F-86/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Social Security - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Spouse of a former official - Circumscribed powers - Article 13 of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities)
   2010/C 24/139
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dietrich Voslamber (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Thielen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2008, rejecting the applicant’s application for primary sickness insurance cover for his spouse pursuant to the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the forms of order sought by the European Commission submitted pursuant to Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay two thirds of the costs of Mr Voslamber;

               4.

               Orders Mr Voslamber to bear one third of his costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008, p. 43.


title: Case T-87/06: Action brought on  14 March 2006  — L'Oréal/OHIM

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/27

         Action brought on 14 March 2006 — L'Oréal/OHIM
   (Case T-87/06)
   (2006/C 108/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal S.A. (Paris, France) [represented by: X. Buffet Delmas d'Autane, Lawyer]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Revlon (Suisse) S.A. (Schlieren, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 9 January 2006 regarding the appeal R 216/2003-4 relating to opposition proceedings No B216087 (Community trade mark application No 1011626);

               —

               Order for all costs incurred in relation to all proceedings in this matter (in particular, the costs of the action and the appeal) to be awarded against the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLEXI DESIGN’ for goods in class 3 — application No 1011626

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Revlon (Suisse) S.A.

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 3 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15 and 43(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the evidence filed by Revlon (Suisse) S.A. cannot be considered valid proof of genuine use of the word mark ‘FLEX’ during the relevant period, neither in the UK nor in France.
   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation as there is no similarity between the conflicting trade marks and consequently no risk of confusion.


C 118/26              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
        Removal from the register of Case C-8/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-102/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/58)                                                     (2001/C 118/61)
By order of 19 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-8/00: Commission of the European          from the register of Case C-102/99: (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Ireland.                                                ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
                                                                      Veneta Assicurazioni SpA. v Ufficio del Registro di Padova.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-421/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/59)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/62)
By order of 25 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331/99: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v France.                                        from the register of Case C-421/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-95/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-469/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/60)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/63)
By order of 26 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-95/00: [reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: O’Neill          from the register of Case C-469/99: Commission of the
Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.                                            European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-465/08: Action brought on 29 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/20

         Action brought on 29 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-465/08)
   (2008/C 327/35)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and H. Støvlbæk)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC into domestic law expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 255 of 30.9.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributario de Segunda Instância by an order of 29 November 1994 in the case of Pascoal & Filhos SA against Fazenda Pública (Case C-97/95)

text:
No C 174/2               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8 . 7 . 95
      differences between the work of the two groups with                        or can a claim for breach of official duty arise only from
      regard to paid breaks, freedom to organize one 's own                      paragraph 839 of the German Civil Code , in
      work and work-related inconveniences, the two types of                     conjunction with Article 34 of the Grundgesetz ( Basic
      work are of equal value or whether those circumstances                     Law )?
      may be considered to be objective factors unrelated to
      any discrimination on grounds of sex which are such as              (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
      to justify any pay differentials.
5 . The principle of equal pay for men and women also
      applies where the elements of the pay are determined by
      collective bargaining or by negotiation at local level.
      However, the national court may take that fact into                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      account in its assessment of whether differences                    Tributario de Segunda Instancia by an order of
      beteween the average pay of two groups of workers are               29 November 1994 in the case of Pascoal &c Filhos SA
      due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination                                  against Fazenda Publica
      on grounds of sex.                                                                              ( Case C-97/95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/03 )
(') OJ No C 287, 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 7 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Tribunal
                                                                          Tributario de Segunda Instancia ( Customs Court of Second
                                                                          Instance ), Lisbon, of 29 November 1995 , which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 27 March 19 95 , for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Pascoal & Filhos SA and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches                 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of
14 February 1995 in the case of Bruna-Alessandra Ziichner                 ( a ) Does the responsibility of the exporter, referred to in
         v. Handelskrankenkasse ( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen                            Article 10 ( 1 ) of Annex II to Council Decision
                            ( Case C-77/95 )                                      86/283/EEC (') of 30 June 1986 , extend to customs
                              ( 95/C 174/02 )
                                                                                duties resulting from the cancellation of movement
                                                                                certificates  EUR.l        issued  on  the basis    of false
                                                                                information as to the origin of the goods ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hanseatisches                     ( b ) ' What is the meaning and scope of the modal adverb
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Erster Zivilsenat ( Higher                          ' also ' used in the second subparagraph of
Regional Court, Bremen — First Civil Senate ) of                                  Article 201 ( 3 ) of the Community Customs Code ( 2 ), in
14 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       particular where the national customs law provides
on 15 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        that responsibility for payment of the duties due in
Bruna-Alessandra           Ziichner      v.   Handelskrankenkasse
                                                                                respect of the goods involved in the infringement
( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen on the following questions :                               attaches exclusively to the person who committed the
                                                                                customs infringement ?
1 . Does the plaintiff, as the wife of the insured person who
      is in need of care, belong to the working population                (c ) May the rule in the judgment of the Court of Justice of
      within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Directive                        the European Communities of 7 December 1993 in
      79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 f 1 )?                                         Case C-12/92 (') E. Huygen, published at pages 5 and 6
                                                                                of Proceedings of the Court of Justice No 35/93 ,
2 . Although paragraph 37 ( 3 ) of the SGB, Book V, is                            although relating to the Free Trade Agreement between
      formulated in neutral terms with regard to sex, does it                     the EEC and Austria, apply to the circumstances of this
      discriminate, within the meaning of the Directive,                          case, which concerns the interpretation and application
      against the plaintiff as a woman ?                                          of Council Decision 86/283/EEC ?
3 . Does the plaintiff, who is not insured by the defendant,              ( d ) What is the meaning, purport and scope of the results of
      have direct entitlement, or does her husband , as the                       the verification referred to by Article 25 ( 3 ) of Annex II
                                                                                to Decision 86/283/EEC ?
      insured person, alone have direct entitlement ?
                                                                          ( e ) May a procedure for post-clearance recovery in the
4 . Is the defendant itself liable , as an organ of the State
                                                                                Member State of importation be commenced and
      ( substitute sickness insurance fund )? If not, who is liable
      in its stead ?
                                                                                completed before the results of the verification are
                                                                                forwarded by the customs authorities in the exporting
                                                                                country to the customs authorities in the importing
5 . Does a claim for breach of official duty, irrespective of                     country and without the importer being aware of the
      fault, exist under the law of the European Communities,                     results of the verification ?
 ---pagebreak---   !. 7 . 95            I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 174/3
( f) Does the levying on an importer acting in good faith of                  claims commission was entered into in that place within
        the duties payable on goods in respect of which an                    the agent's geographical area .
        exporter has committed a customs offence, in which the
        importer was in no way involved , infringe the principles
        of justice, prohibition of enrichment at the expense of
        others, proportionality, legal certainty and good
        faith ?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 31 March 1995 by the Bundesverband
(g ) Since the customs authorities in the country of                     der Bilanzbuchhalter against the judgment delivered on
        exportation neglected to carry out a prior inspection of         23 January 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
        the exporter 's warehouses before issuing the-movement           First Instance of the European Communities in Case
        certificates EUR.l , and since the Portuguese importer           T-84/94 between the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter
        cannot remedy the situation arising from such                        and the Commission of the European Communities
        negligence , does that situation not constitute a case of                              ( Case C-107/95 P )
        force majeure for the importer, precluding the
                                                                                95 /C 174/05 )
        procedure for post-clearance recovery commenced
        against it ?
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January
(') OJ No L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                         1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
( 2 ) OJ No L .302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            of the European Communities in Case T-84/94 between the
(') 1 1993 | ECR , p . 1-6381 .                                          Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter and the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 1 March
                                                                         1995 by the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter,
                                                                         represented by Joachim A. Miiller, Rechtsanwalt, Munich,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio , Athens , by judgment of that court of                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
30 November 1994 in the case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v.
                            Kartonpak AE                                 set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( Case C-104/95 )                              23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 (').
                            ( 95 /C 174/04 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Infringement of the provisions of the EC Treaty , in
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles                      particular Articles 5 , 59 , 86 and 90 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ), and
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens ,        misinterpretation of Articles 155 and 169 of the EC Treaty .
of 30 November 1994 , which was received at the Court
                                                                         Contrary to the assumption made in the contested
Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the              judgment, an action against a refusal to bring proceedings
case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v. Kartonpak AE pending                    under Article 1 69 or Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty must in
before it on the following questions :                                   any event be admissible where it is pleaded that the refusal is
                                                                         based on a defective investigation into the facts or the
 1 . Where the commercial agent is responsible for a specific            assessment by the Commission in the case in point is reduced
      geographical area , is he entitled to commission on                to naught.
       transactions entered into without his involvement at any
       stage and irrespective of whether he himself had found            (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 , p . 11 .
       the customers in question, or is he so entitled only on
       transactions concluded in his area of activity as a result
       of his intervention with customers which he himself has
       found ?
2 . What is the meaning to be attached to the term                       Action brought on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       'customer belonging ' to that area ? In particular where             Germany against the Council of the European Union
       the customer is a company whose seat is located in a                                       ( Case C-122/95 )
       different place from that in which its managerial and
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/06 )
       commercial activity is carried on , does the word
       ' belonging' refer to the company's seat or to the place in
       which its commercial activity is actually carried on              An action against the Council of the European Union was
       and/or its works or other establishments are located ,            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       where the transaction in respect of which commission is           Communities on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       sought was to supply those works or establishments and            Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Berndt Kloke,
       the relevant transaction in respect of which the agent            Federal Ministry of Economics, Bonn.


title: Case T-765/16: Action brought on 5 November 2016 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/47

         Action brought on 5 November 2016 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)
   (Case T-765/16)
   (2017/C 006/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS’ — Application for registration No 13 308 259

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 1404/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (j) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-544/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark STEAM GLIDE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE)
   (Case T-544/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark STEAM GLIDE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 55/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: D. Botis, subsequently by G. Schneider and, finally, by G. Schneider and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings intervening before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2011 (Case R 1289/2010-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case T-96/09: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — UCAPT v Council (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes for farmers — Production aid for tobacco — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Not of individual concern — Inadmissible)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/31

         Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — UCAPT v Council
   (Case T-96/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes for farmers - Production aid for tobacco - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Not of individual concern - Inadmissible)
   2011/C 347/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France (UCAPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Peignot and D.F. Garreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-564/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Tibor Farkas v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Tibor Farkas v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-564/15)
   (2016/C 090/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tibor Farkas

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a practice of the tax authority, based on the provisions of the Law on VAT, compatible with the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular the principle of proportionality with the objectives of tax neutrality and the prevention of tax fraud, if, by that practice, that authority declares that a purchaser of an item of property (or recipient of a service) is liable for a tax difference in a situation in which the seller of the property (or supplier of the service) issues an invoice in accordance with the ordinary tax system for a transaction to which the reverse charge procedure applies and declares and pays to the Treasury the tax relating to that invoice, and the purchaser of the item of property (or recipient of the service), for his part, deducts the VAT paid to the issuer of the invoice, even though he may not exercise his right to deduct the VAT declared as a tax difference?

               2.

               Is the imposition of a penalty for selecting an incorrect method of taxation in the case of a declaration of a tax difference, which also entails the imposition of a tax fine of 50 %, proportionate where the Treasury has not incurred any loss of revenue and there is no evidence of abuse?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-518/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Richard Gaillard v Alaya Chekili (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Brussels Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property — Scope — Action for rescission of a contract of sale of immovable property and for damages)

text:
C 200/36                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     even where the tax in question is levied on that part of the net assets
                                                                           which is made up of the share capital as set out annually in the
                                                                           balance sheet.
                          (First Chamber)
                         of 15 March 2001                                  (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999 (C-279/99, C-296/99, C-336/99);
                                                                               OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999 (C-293/99); OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999
                                                                               (C-330/99).
in Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99
and C-336/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento):
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Others v Direzione delle
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento, Hotel Bellavista di
Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc and Others v Ufficio Imposte
Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle
Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento, and Tumedei SpA
v Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                              Trento (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer capable
            of being clearly deduced from case-law)
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
                          (2001/C 200/65)
                                                                           in Case C-518/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Richard Gaillard v Alaya
                                                                                Chekili (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Brussels
                                                                           Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction in
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in
                   in the European Court Reports)                          immovable property — Scope — Action for rescission of a
                                                                              contract of sale of immovable property and for damages)
In Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99
and C-336/99: references to the Court under Article 234 EC                                           (2001/C 200/66)
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento
(Tax Court of First Instance, Trento) (Italy) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Direzione delle Entrate per la                                (Language of the case: French)
Provincia di Trento (C-279/99), between Energy Service Srl
and Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
(C-293/99), between Pavarini Components SpA and Direzione                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (C-296/99), between                                  in the European Court Reports)
Hotel Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni Hotel
Plaza di Cattoni Gian Carlo e C. Snc, Villa Luti Srl and Ufficio
Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento, Centro di Servizio delle               In Case C-518/99: reference to the Court pursuant to the
Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento (C-330/99), and between              Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Tumedei SpA and Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e                 Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdic-
Indirette di Trento (C-336/99) on the interpretation of Council            tion and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                   matters from the Cour d’appel, Bruxelles (Court of Appeal,
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969          Brussels) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of               before that court between Richard Gaillard and Alaya Chekili
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court                            — on the interpretation of Article 16(1) of the Convention of
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                    27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;                   the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made             Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
an order on 15 March 2001, the operative part of which is as               Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 —
follows:                                                                   see p. 77 for the amended text) and by the Convention of
                                                                           25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
                                                                           (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect           of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive           J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying on               Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets,       made an order on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/37
An action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land and            Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
consequential damages is not within the scope of the rules on exclusive    1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem       Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as
in immovable property under Article 16(1) of the Convention of             regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision
27 September 1968 between the Member States of the European                94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, are not such as to create rights
Economic Community on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg-            which individuals may rely on directly before a national court in order
ments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention        to oppose the application of the second subparagraph of Article
of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,              18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern               1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as
Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession          amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998.
of the Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000                                                    (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                            of 2 May 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
in Case C-307/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany): OGT Fruchthand-                                                (Fifth Chamber)
elsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Ann-
                                 en (1)
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Bananas —
Common organisation of the market — GATT — Direct
effect — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty                   in Case C-345/00 P: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
 (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC))                Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
                           (2001/C 200/67)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 1804/1999 — Prohibition
                                                                           of using indications suggesting an organic method of pro-
                   (Language of the case: German)                          duction in the labelling and advertising of products not
                                                                           obtained by that production method — Temporary dero-
                                                                           gation for existing trade-marks — Application for annul-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        ment — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/68)
In Case C-307/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and                                            (Language of the case: French)
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen — on the interpretation of
Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the Euro-                  (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
pean Community, as regards matters within its competence,                                 in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ
1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and            In Case C-345/00 P Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),           France, Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distrib-
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and              uteurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                   established in Paris, France, Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl,
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2001, in                   established in Château-Salins, France, represented by the
which it has ruled:                                                        lawyer D. Leermakers and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with an address


title: Case T-8/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Dredging International and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul v EMSA (Public service contracts — EMSA’s procurement procedures — Operation of stand-by oil spill recovery vessels — Rejection of a tender — Action for annulment — Tender inconsistent with the subject of the contract — Consequences — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Definition of the subject of the contract — Failure to disclose the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender — Statement of reasons — Award of the contract — No right of action — Application for a declaration that the contract concluded with the successful tenderer is null and void — Claim for damages)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Dredging International and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul v EMSA
   (Case T-8/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - EMSA’s procurement procedures - Operation of stand-by oil spill recovery vessels - Rejection of a tender - Action for annulment - Tender inconsistent with the subject of the contract - Consequences - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Definition of the subject of the contract - Failure to disclose the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender - Statement of reasons - Award of the contract - No right of action - Application for a declaration that the contract concluded with the successful tenderer is null and void - Claim for damages)
   2011/C 311/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dredging International NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium) and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul NV (Hofstade-Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: R. Martens and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: J. Menze, Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) of 28 October 2008 to reject the applicants’ bid submitted in response to a call for tenders EMSA/NEG/3/2008 regarding the service contracts for stand-by oil spill recovery vessels (Lot 2: North Sea) (OJ 2008/S 48-065631) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and, second, a request for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dredging International NV and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.


title: Case T-74/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Fox Racing v OHIM — Lloyd IP (SHIFT) (Community trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Fox Racing v OHIM — Lloyd IP (SHIFT)
   (Case T-74/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 69/86)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fox Racing, Inc. (Morgan-Hill, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Lloyd IP Limited (Penrith, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Elliot, solicitor)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 December 2005 (Case R 1180/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Lloyd IP Limited and Fox Racing Inc.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is to pay its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

               3.

               The intervener is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-443/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council (Dumping — Imports of coated fine paper originating in China — Market economy treatment — Time-limit for adopting the MET decision — Diligent and impartial examination — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Burden of proof — Injury — Determination of the profit margin — Definition of the product concerned — Community industry — Causal link)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council
   (Case T-443/11) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of coated fine paper originating in China - Market economy treatment - Time-limit for adopting the MET decision - Diligent and impartial examination - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Burden of proof - Injury - Determination of the profit margin - Definition of the product concerned - Community industry - Causal link))
   2014/C 380/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China), and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu) (represented by: V. Akritidis, Y. Melin and F. Crespo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch, A. Polcyn, lawyers, and by N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and by S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents), Cepifine AISBL (Brussels, Belgium), Sappi Europe SA (Brussels), Burgo Group SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy), and Lecta SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 128, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union, Cepifine AISBL, Sappi Europe SA, Burgo Group SpA and Lecta SA;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-221/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file — Action for annulment — Implied and express refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission
      (Case T-221/08) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file - Action for annulment - Implied and express refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))
      (2016/C 211/51)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn and N. Lödler, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Eggers, and subsequently by B. Eggers and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, action for annulment of all implied and express decisions of the Commission adopted following the initial applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack on 18 and 19 January 2008 and, secondly, an action for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the implied decisions refusing access to the documents, taken in connection with the applications for access made by Mr Guido Strack.

                  2.

                  Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the express decisions refusing access, in full or in part, to the documents, adopted by the Commission of the European Communities and by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in connection with the confirmatory applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack of 22 February and 21 April 2008, in so far as those documents did not exist or were not available, those documents, or parts of those documents, have been released to the public, or Mr Strack accepts the lawfulness of the decisions refusing access.

                  3.

                  Annuls OLAF’s decision of 30 April 2010 in so far as:

                              —

                              access to the documents marked ‘PD’ was refused;

                              —

                              Mr Strack’s name was concealed in the documents marked ‘PA’;

                              —

                              documents were omitted in OLAF’s list of 30 April 2010 or were not communicated to Mr Strack solely on the grounds that he created them, he had them in his possession for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and on the free movement of such data, or another provision, without those documents having been disclosed to the public, or they were not included in the application for access, since they related to exchanges between OLAF and the European Ombudsman, or between OLAF and Mr Strack, and they concerned Mr Strack without being part of the investigation file in question;

                  4.

                  Annuls OLAF’s decision of 7 July 2010 in so far as:

                              —

                              access to document No 266 was refused on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

                              —

                              access to document No 268 was refused, with exception of the information to which Mr Strack could have had access to on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the context of the transmission of other documents;

                              —

                              Mr Strack’s name was concealed in the circulation sheets annexed to that decision;

                  5.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  6.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of Mr Strack;

                  7.

                  Orders Mr Strack to bear one quarter of his own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-417/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/36/EC — Safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-417/07) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/36/EC - Safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 116/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.