title: Case T-87/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/62

         Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)
   (Case T-87/17)
   (2017/C 104/86)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kuka Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Matrix light’ — Application for registration No 14 779 714

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 886/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-309/01: Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 56/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.3.2002
Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Jean-Paul                          Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Peter Biegi
François against Commission of the European Communi-                     Nahrungsmittel GmbH against the Commission of the
                                ties                                                           European Communities
                         (Case T-307/01)                                                          (Case T-309/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/27)
                          (2002/C 56/26)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 12 December 2001 by Peter Biegi
European Communities on 10 December 2001 by Jean-Paul                    Nahrungsmittel GmbH, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany),
François, residing in Wavre (Belgium), represented by Anne               represented by K. Landry and L. Harings, lawyers.
Colson, lawyer.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul the Commission’s decision No REC 4/00 of
                                                                               14 August 2001 in so far as it orders the subsequent
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the opinion of the Disciplin-             entry in the accounts of import duties amounting to
      ary Board of 9 March 2000;                                               DEM 218 605,65;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 5 April
                                                                               costs necessarily incurred in the proceedings.
      2001 relegating the applicant in step;
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Sep-
      tember 2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by the                  Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant;
—     uphold the application for damages and order the Com-              On the basis of oral information provided by the competent
      mission to pay to the applicant EUR 37 500, subject to             customs authority, to the effect that production of import
      increase or decrease as may be decided in the course of            certificates for the importation of chickens in the context of
      proceedings, as compensation for the economic and non-             two specific quotas was not necessary, the applicant submitted
      material damage suffered;                                          a declaration in respect of the import of frozen chicken pieces
                                                                         originating in Thailand under CN Code No 020 741 10. The
                                                                         authority initially granted relief from import duties, but
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             subsequently charged the applicant import duties amounting
                                                                         to DEM 259 270,23. The applicant raised an objection to that
                                                                         decision and the national authorities referred the matter to the
                                                                         Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the
                                                                         EC Treaty and the general principles of Community law,
In support of his application, the applicant claims infringement         as well as Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1).
of the provisions of the Staff Regulations governing disciplin-          According to the applicant, the German customs authorities
ary proceedings, as well as manifest error of assessment.                undeniably committed an error, and that error could not
According to the applicant, his rights of the defence have not           reasonably have been detected by the applicant. The legal
been observed, in particular because he has not been given full          position was unclear, and the applicant fulfilled its obligation
access to the file. Furthermore, certain charges against the             to exercise due care.
applicant have not, in his view, been fully substantiated.
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of non-
discrimination and breach of legitimate expectations.                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                             establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2001 In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/65/EC)

text:
C 348/8                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.12.2001
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,          to comply with Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 Novem-
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary          ber 1997 adapting, for the third time, to technical progress
      to comply with Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October                  Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers
      1997 adapting to technical progress Council Directive                      from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, the
      90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to              Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual                  Article 2(1) of that Directive;
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its        2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive;
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                     (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
                         of 11 October 2001
                                                                           in Case C-189/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Com-                          the Sozialgericht Trier): Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für
                munities v Republic of Austria (1)                                                        Arbeit (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Nationals of non-member
                         Directive 97/65/EC)                               countries — Members of a worker’s family — Rights
                                                                           acquired directly and rights derived through others —
                                                                                Unemployment benefit)
                            (2001/C 348/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/14)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: N. Yerrell and C. Ladenburger) v Republic of Austria
(Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                           In Case C-189/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission the laws,
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sozialgericht
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                           (Social Court) Trier (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
with Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 November 1997
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Urszula Ruhr
adapting, for the third time, to technical progress Council
                                                                           v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on the interpretation of
Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
                                                                           Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
related to exposure to biological agents at work, (OJ 1997
                                                                           14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
L 335, p. 17), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive — the Court
                                                                           of their families moving within the Community, in the version
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
                                                                           amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-
                                                                           of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by
mans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which
                                                                           1999 L 38, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
it:
                                                                           P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary    it has ruled:


title: Case C-67/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(2)(a) — Scope — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Dissolution of the marriage — Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/15

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva
   (Case C-67/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(2)(a) - Scope - Matters excluded - Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship - Dissolution of the marriage - Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage))
   (2017/C 249/22)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Rayonen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Todor Iliev

      Defendant: Blagovesta Ilieva

      Operative part of the order

   Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, relating to the liquidation of property — acquired during marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State — after a divorce has taken place, does not come within the scope of that regulation but comes rather within the scope of matrimonial property regimes and, consequently, within the scope of the exclusions listed in Article 1(2)(a) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case C-384/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 29 September 2009 — PRUNUS SARL v Directeur des Services Fiscaux

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 29 September 2009 — PRUNUS SARL v Directeur des Services Fiscaux
   (Case C-384/09)
   2009/C 312/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Prunus SARL

      Defendant: Directeur des Services Fiscaux

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such as that laid down by Article 990 D et seq. of the Code général des impôts which grants legal persons having their effective centre of management in France or, since 1 January 2008, in a Member State of the European Union, entitlement to exemption from the tax at issue and which, as regards legal persons having their effective centre of management in the territory of a non-Member State, makes that entitlement conditional either on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion and avoidance concluded between France and that State or on there being a requirement, under a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality, that those legal persons are not to be taxed more heavily than legal persons having their effective centre of management in France?

               2.

               Does Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such as that laid down by Article 990 F of the Code général des impôts which enables tax services to hold jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax provided for in Article 990 D et seq. of the Code général des impôts any legal person interposed between the party or parties liable to the tax and the immovable properties or rights in such properties?


Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0001

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 April 1997 in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune (Case E-1/97)

Official Journal C 282 , 18/09/1997 P. 0013 - 0013

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 April 1997 in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune (Case E-1/97) (97/C 282/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 22 April 1997 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune, on the following questions:1. Is there '. . . discrimination . . . between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States` contrary to Article 16 EEA if a national is refused the right to market red wine, white wine and rosé wine at the retail level, on the grounds that wine may only be sold at the retail level through a State commercial monopoly, in a situation where beer with an alcohol content of lower than 4,75 % alcohol by volume (medium-strength beer) may be sold outside the commercial monopoly by parties who obtain a municipal licence?2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can alcohol policy and/or health considerations, first and foremost the wish to reduce the availability and consumption of alcohol, be grounds for the differential treatment in marketing for wine and medium-strength beer as referred to in question 1 falling outside the scope of Article 16 of the EEA Agreement?3. (a) Does Article 4 and/or Article 11 apply to the retail sale of wine?(b) If question 3 (a) is answered wholly or in part in the affirmative, is the differential treatment in marketing referred to in question 1 in violation of Article 4 and/or Article 11?(c) If question 3 (b) is answered wholly or in part in the affirmative, can alcohol policy and/or health considerations as referred to in question 2 be grounds for applying the exception rule as set out in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?


title: Case T-6/12: Action brought on 5 January 2012 — Godrej Industries and V V F v Council

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/33

         Action brought on 5 January 2012 — Godrej Industries and V V F v Council
   (Case T-6/12)
   2012/C 49/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Godrej Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India), V V F Ltd (Mumbai) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that by failing to grant the adjustment for currency conversion which the applicants claimed for sales made in Euro between January and June 2010, in view of the fact that there had been a sustained appreciation of the Indian Rupee against the Euro during an important part of the investigation period, the Council violated Article 2(10) (and, in particular, paragraph (j) thereof) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), as interpreted in accordance with Articles 2.4 and 2.4.1 of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that by not excluding the sales of the product concerned, to the Union industry, for the purpose of the calculation of the injury margin and for the purpose of the injury and causality analysis, the Council violated Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 and, in particular, paragraphs 2, 6 and 7 thereof, as well as Article 9(4) thereof;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that by failing to exclude sales to the Union industry for the purpose of the calculation of the dumping margin, the Council violated Articles 1(1) and 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009, interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, in particular Article 9(1) thereof, as well as the principle of proportionality and reasonableness.

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51


title: Case T-101/17: Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/39

         Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission
   (Case T-101/17)
   (2017/C 121/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr, and A. Patsa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive

                           —

                           First, the European Commission violated Articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by finding that the country of origin principle does not apply to the film levy. Second, the European Commission violated Article 13(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by considering that this article allows Member States to impose financial contributions for the promotion of European works on video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 110 TFEU

                           —

                           The European Commission violated Article 110 TFEU by finding that the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States is not discriminatory.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 56 TFEU

                           —

                           The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States violates Article 56 TFEU

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Directive 98/34/EC

                           —

                           The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States required notification under Directive 98/34/EC.


title: Case C-324/05 P: Appeal brought on  28 July 2005  (received by fax on  27 July 2005 ) by Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of  22 June 2005  in Case T-34/04  Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH  v  Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/12

         Appeal brought on 28 July 2005 (received by fax on 27 July 2005) by Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-324/05 P)
   (2005/C 296/24)
   Language of the case: German
   On 28 July 2005 (received by fax on 27 July 2005), Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, represented by P.H. Kort, M.W. Husemann and B. Piepenbrink, of Kort Rechtsanwälte (GBR), Ellerstraße 123/125, D-40227 Düsseldorf, Germany, brought an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 (1);

               —

               give final judgment on the case and find in favour of the application made at first instance, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments (Case C-324/05 P)
   By its appeal the appellant is seeking to prevent the use of the word mark ‘POWER’ in the trade mark applied for (‘TURKISH POWER’) from leading to a taking over of the rights associated with the earlier mark. It substantiates its appeal against the abovementioned judgment by alleging legal error in the application of current Community law on Community trade marks and that, by the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance changed its decision-making practice and infringed the principle of equal treatment:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the rights of the earlier mark are infringed by the incorporation of the separate formative word mark ‘POWER’ in the trade mark applied for. The extent of the protection granted by the German authorities for the word ‘POWER’ is unlimited and consequently, the goods in question have the exclusive trade mark rights. It must remain possible and without restriction for the earlier trade mark to be combined with free-standing verbal or graphic elements, if this is required for it to be marketed. However, the judgment under appeal restricts the appellant's creative freedom.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the trade mark applied for reuses the word contained in the earlier trade mark in a formative way and has taken it over as a trade mark. The dominance of the word ‘POWER’ in the trade mark applied for is not offset by the word ‘TURKISH’, since this, in a manner characteristic of the tobacco industry, alludes to the tobacco designation ‘Turkish blend’ frequently used in that industry. It can thus be considered as a reference to the Turkish origin of the tobacco mixture which is put together with the word ‘POWER’ to form the name of a trade mark. Therefore, the Court of First Instance erred in taking the view that the word combination ‘TURKISH POWER’ has a suggestive effect independent of the word ‘POWER’.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance erroneously concluded that there were sufficient aural differences between the two conflicting marks, since the danger of aural confusion between the two is sufficient in itself to prevent registration of the trade mark applied for. As regards the visual similarities of the two marks, the Court of First Instance failed to consider that, from a visual perspective also, trade marks are predominantly characterised by the words of which they are composed, because consumers are more familiar with words than with images and can remember them more easily. The conclusion that the words which make up the trade mark applied for are dominated by the visual element is therefore unfounded.

               4.

               The Court of First Instance erroneously assumed that the relevant public is particularly attentive: it is not established that consumers are more attentive when buying cigarettes than when buying groceries or other consumer goods. Even if particular attentiveness could none the less be assumed, it cannot be ruled out that the word mark ‘POWER’ will make customers think of the earlier mark and that the trade mark applied for would immediately be brought into connection with the appellant's company, that is to say, as a sub-brand of a Turkish mix of ‘POWER’ tobacco.

      (1)  OJ 2005 C 205, p. 21.


title: Case T-620/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/18

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
   (Case T-620/11)
   2012/C 39/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GFKL Financial Services AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: M. Schweda, S. Schultes-Schnitzlein, J. Eggers and M. Knebelsberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275, on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is not a selective measure

                           —

                           The applicant takes the view that the defendant based its decision on an incorrect understanding of German corporation tax law. In particular, it determined the relevant reference system incorrectly. It incorrectly assumed that exception in the Paragraph 8c(1) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax), according to which losses which may on the whole be carried forward are extinguished in particular cases of acquisitions of interests, are part of the reference system. In fact, that provision is a departure from the reference system. The reference system consists of the general possibility of carrying forward losses to subsequent fiscal periods. That follows not least from the (constitutional) principle of net profit or loss.

                           —

                           The provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is in addition, according to the applicant, a general fiscal policy measure which does not confer a selective advantage because it does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and does not therefore differentiate between economic operators who are in a comparable factual and legal position as regards the aim of the tax system.

                           —

                           The provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is after all also justified on the basis of the general scheme of the German tax system because it helps to give effect to fundamental principles of German corporation tax law (inter alia the principle of transfer of losses between different tax periods), which arise directly from the German Basic Law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: there are no subsidies from State resources
               In this connection the applicant submits that there are no subsidies from State resources for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU in the carry forward of losses maintained by the provision, as that provision does not confer a financial advantage, but merely maintains a company’s already existing financial position

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. The applicant takes the view that there is no comprehensible reason for the reference system used as a basis by the defendant. In addition, the multitude of errors the defendant made in it assessment of the underlying German corporation tax law means as a whole that the basic reasons are no longer discernible. The applicant submits that the contested decision does not make it possible to discern the factual and legal circumstances on which the defendant bases its view that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses constitutes State aid.

               4.

               Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               In this connection the applicant submits that the contested decision in also unlawful in so far as it orders the immediate and effective recovery of the (putative) aid without allowing Germany to take into account the existing justified legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries that the benefit would continue to exist. The contested decision to that extent infringes the unwritten principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under EU law.


title: Case C-13/13 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/12

         Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission

   (Case C-13/13 P)
   2013/C 71/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Syndicat des thoniers méditeranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Gérard Buono. Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin

      Form of order sought

               —

               Uphold the claims and pleas in law of the appellants in their appeal;

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 in so far as it rejects the appellants’ application;

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 on the issue of costs;

               —

               Declare admissible and allow the application by the Syndicat des Thoniers de la Méditerranée (STM), including the application for damages;

               —

               Uphold the applications by the applicants before the General Court who have appealed to the Court of Justice;

               —

               Uphold the applications by the applicants before the General Court with regard to the principle of compensatory damages;

               —

               Uphold the applications of the applicants before the General Court with regard to the amount of compensation applied for in the initial application as subsequently corrected in accordance with the establishment of the elements of the loss of use calculation and the evidence;

               —

               Should the previous point be rejected, appoint an expert under the responsibility of the European Commission to calculate the compensation due on the basis of a calculation method to be adopted by the Court;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs and to reimburse all the charges relating to lawyers’ costs, legal proceedings, transport and travel incurred by the STM and the individual appellants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants rely on four pleas in law in support of their appeal.
   First, the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens considers that the General Court distorted the facts contained in the case-file in order to deny it any interest in bringing an action and, consequently, in order to hold that its action was inadmissible.
   Second, the appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by interpreting the judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09 AJD Tuna in such a way as to make it possible to regard Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 (1) as an unlawful act. According to the appellants, that Regulation remains lawful, but is partially invalid.
   Third, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to acknowledge the Commission's liability for a lawful act, on the basis that the harm relied on would not exceed the limits of the economic risk inherent in fishing.
   Finally, the appellants complain that the General Court ruled in disregard of rules of law with which it was bound to comply by not ruling on the pleas in law or arguments brought before it by the parties to the dispute. In particular, the appellants complain that the General Court did not rule on the pleas in law or arguments concerning the different treatment of the Spanish seiners and the appellants under Regulation (EC) No 530/2008.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).


title: Case T-221/99: Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmussen against Council of the European Union

text:
18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 366/29
Harm                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
1. Loss of income due to cancelled and lost bookings                    The applicant contests the finding that her absences were
                                                                        unlawful, submitting that:
    a) Cancelled bookings
                                                                        — the Council infringed Article 59(3) of the Staff Regulations
    b) Lost bookings                                                         in refusing to request the Invalidity Committee to deter-
                                                                             mine the validity of the medical certificates submitted by
                                                                             the applicant as evidence that her absences were caused by
2. Loss of income by reason of reduction of the price of the                 illness; and
    services offered
                                                                        — the Council is in breach of its obligations to give reasons
3. Harm resulting from the increased burden on the budget                    for its decisions and to respect the rights of the defence, in
    for financing the construction of new ships, by reasony of               that it has failed to produce any information of a medical
    interest due on additional borrowing                                     nature which would enable the doctor treating the appli-
                                                                             cant to understand the reasons which have led the medical
4. Lower profits by reason of loss of income in future seasons               officers checking the certificates submitted to question
    and of clientele.                                                        their validity.
                                                                        As regards the disciplinary action, the applicant points out
                                                                        that this was taken following her refusal to undergo periodical
                                                                        medical examinations. She emphasises in this connection that
                                                                        she was acting on the advice of her own doctor who believed
                                                                        that such examinations might have a deleterious effect on her
                                                                        health, a view which, according to the applicant, was recently
                                                                        confirmed by the Invalidity Committee’s decision of 23 March
                                                                        1999 finding her definitively incapable of performing her
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmus-                    duties in view of the seriousness of the illness afflicting her.
         sen against Council of the European Union                      The applicant argues that she is not in breach, therefore, of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations and that, consequently, the decision to take
                       (Case T-221/99)                                  disciplinary action lacks legal foundation and, at the very least,
                                                                        is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
                       (1999/C 366/62)
                                                                        Lastly, the applicant maintains that, by requiring her to
                                                                        undergo medical examinations deleterious to her health, the
                                                                        Council acted in dereliction of its duty on a number of counts,
                  (Language of the case: French)                        thereby incurring liability.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmussen,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-
Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                              Action brought on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Marti-
                                                                        nez and Charles de Gaulle against the European Parliament
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-222/99)
— annul the Council decision declaring that the applicant’s
    absences between 28 September 1998 and 18 March 1999                                          (1999/C 366/63)
    were unlawful;
— annul the Council’s decision to issue the applicant with a                                 (Language of the case: French)
    written warning by way of disciplinary action;
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
— order the Council to make a token payment to the                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    applicant of one euro by way of compensation for the                on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at
    non-physical damage suffered;                                       Montpellier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris,
                                                                        represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                   Poissonnerie, Nice.


title: Case C-610/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Preliminary objection of inadmissibility — Article 228(2) EC and Article 260(2) TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment — Financial penalties)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-610/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Preliminary objection of inadmissibility - Article 228(2) EC and Article 260(2) TFEU - Failure to comply with the judgment - Financial penalties)
   2013/C 38/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

      Supported by: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Art. 260 TFEU — Non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 (ECR I-6031) — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the supplementary letter of formal notice issued on 18 March 2010 by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain, relating, inter alia, to the recovery from Industrias Domésticas SA of aid which, under Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aid in Spain which the central and several autonomous governments granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small electric appliances, was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 50 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Spain, from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the date on which the judgment in Commission v Spain is complied with;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 20 million;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               5.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-555/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — JBF RAK v Council (Subsidies — Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates — Definitive countervailing duty and definite collection of provisional duty — Articles 11(8), 15(1) and 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — JBF RAK v Council
   (Case T-555/10) (1)

   (Subsidies - Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates - Definitive countervailing duty and definite collection of provisional duty - Articles 11(8), 15(1) and 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 - Principle of sound administration)
   2012/C 200/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JBF RAK LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent, G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, M. França and G. Luengo, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JBF RAK LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-313/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Barcelona) — Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano v Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA (Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfer of undertaking — Safeguarding of employees' rights — Insolvency proceedings — Assignment of lease)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Barcelona) — Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano v Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA
   (Case C-313/07) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertaking - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Insolvency proceedings - Assignment of lease)
   (2008/C 313/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Mercantil (Barcelona, Spain)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano

      Defendants: Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Interpretation of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses does not require, in the event of transfer of an undertaking, the preservation of the lease of commercial premises entered into by the transferor of the undertaking with a third party even though the termination of that lease is likely to entail the termination of contracts of employment transferred to the transferee.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case F-106/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 January 2008 — Erbežnik v Parliament

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/71

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 January 2008 — Erbežnik v Parliament
   (Case F-106/06) (1)

   (2008/C 64/117)

      Language of the case: Slovenian

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 281, 46.


title: Case T-321/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Ansell Healthcare Europe v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/29

         Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Ansell Healthcare Europe v Commission
   (Case T-321/16)
   (2016/C 296/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ansell Healthcare Europe NV (Anderlecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of 8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Case C-72/95)

text:
No C 119/8              | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 5 . 95
Where a claimant is entitled to a national social security                   or Article 19 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 is
benefit by virtue of falling within the scope of Council                     amplified ?
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
and women in matters of social security ( 1 ) does Community
law, in the circumstances of the present case, entitle the
claimant to interest on the award of benefit and, if so:
   (i ) from what date is interest payable ?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State,
  (ii ) what shall the rate of interest be ?                             Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of
                                                                         8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
( iii ) is interest to be calculated only on the balance which           Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
          falls due after off-setting, in accordance with national                                  Zuid-Holland
          overlapping rules, any other benefit payments made
                                                                                (Case C-72/95 )
          for the same period ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/17
H OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Raad van
                                                                         State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ( State Council,
                                                                         Administrative Appeal Section) of 8 March 1 995 , which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer                   Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 9 February              Zuid Holland ( Zuid-Holland Provincial Executive ), on the
1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co . KG v.
                                                                         following questions:
Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung, third
                 party: Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         1 . Must the expression 'canalization and flood-relief
                            ( Case C-68/95 )                                 works ' in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
                              ( 95/C 119/16 )                                27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                             public and private projects on the environment (*) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       interpreted as also covering certain types of work on a
European Communities by an order of the Hessischer                           dike running alongside waterways ?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof,              Eighth     Senate     ( Higher
Administrative Court, Hesse ) of 9 February 1995 , which                 2 . Having regard in particular to the expressions 'projects'
was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1 995 , for a                 and 'modifications to projects' employed in the
preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co. KG                      Directive, does it make any difference to the answer to
v. Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung                         question 1 whether what is involved is :
( Federal Office for Agriculture and Food ), third party:
Federal Republic of Germany, on the following                                (a ) the construction of a new dike;
questions :
                                                                             ( b ) the relocation of an existing dike;
1 . Does Article 16 ( 3 ) or Article 30 of Council Regulation
       ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 H put the                       (c ) the reinforcement and/or widening of an existing
                                                                                dike;
       Commission under a duty to deal with cases of hardship
       arising because operators of category A have difficulties
       in continuing trading owing to the fact that, on the basis
                                                                             ( d) the replacement in situ of a dike whether or not the
                                                                                new dike is stronger and/or wider than the old one;
       of the reference years to be taken into account under                       or
       Article 19 (2 ) of that Regulation, they are allocated an
       exceptionally low quota and cannot switch to the                      (e ) a combination of two or more of ( a ) to ( d )?
       market for ACP and Community bananas ?
                                                                         3 . Must Article 2(1 ) and Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be
2 . Is Article 19 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 invalid               interpreted as meaning that — if a Member State lays
       in so far as it makes no provision for taking other                   down in its national implementing legislation wrong
       reference years into account in cases of hardship in the              specifications or criteria and/or thresholds within the
       transitional period ?                                                 meaning of Article 4 (2 ) of the Directive for a project
                                                                             listed in Annex II — an obligation exists by virtue of
3 . In the event that one of the above two questions is                      Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Directive to subject the project to an
       answered in the affirmative : on what conditions is the               environmental impact assessment if the project is likely
       national court authorized to take provisional measures                to have 'significant effects on the environment by virtue
       in proceedings for the grant of interim relief until                  inter alia of [its] nature, size or location' within the
       such time as hardship arrangements are introduced                     meaning of Article 2 ( 1 )?
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/9
4 . In the event that question 3 is answered in the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
     affirmative, does that obligation have direct effect, that        Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 15 March 1995
     is to say, can it be invoked by an individual before a            in the case of Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van
     national court and must it be applied by the national                                          Financiën
     court even though it was not in fact invoked in the                                       ( Case C-80/95 )
     matter pending before that court ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/19
(!) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                       15 March 1995, which was received at the Couft Regfefty
                                                                       on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der              Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on the
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 10 March 1995 in              following questions :
the case of 1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v.
                Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH                            1 . Are the mere acquisition of ownership in and the
                           (Case C-78/95 )                                 holding of bonds — claims embodied in marketable
                            ( 95/C 119/18 )                                securities —, activities which are not subservient to any
                                                                           other business activity, and the receipt of income
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     therefrom to be regarded as economic activities within
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                        the meaning of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Directive ?
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
10 March 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry              2 . If that question has to be answered in the affirmative,
on 16 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 should those activities be regarded as transactions,
1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v. Magenta Druck                   within the meaning of Article 13B ( d ) ( 1 ) or ( 5 ) of the
& Verlag GmbH, on the following questions:                                 Sixth Directive, which, in so far as they relate to bonds
                                                                           issued by a body established outside the Community,
1 . Must Article 29 of the Brussels              Convention be             confer an entitlement to deduct the input tax imposed
     interpreted as meaning that the court "of the State in                on the possession and management of the bonds as a
     which recognition is sought must refrain from making                  result of Article 17 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive ?
     any inquiry into the question as to whether the
     defendant to the proceedings conducted in the State in            3 . If question 2 has to be answered in the affirmative, in the
     which judgment was given was validly represented, even                event that a taxable person carrying out the activities
     if the court of the State in which judgment was given                 referred to in the foregoing questions is also the holder
     made no ruling in that regard ?                                       of shares, which, according to that which the Court of
                                                                           Justice held in particular in its judgment of 22 June 1994
2 . ( a ) Must Article 27 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention be              in Case C-333/91 Satam SA, fall outside the scope of
           interpreted as precluding recognition of a judgment             value added tax, can the input tax charged to that
           given in another Contracting State where the                    taxable person be deducted in full or is the input tax
           defendant to the relevant proceedings was not                   relating to the possession of the shares debarred from
           validly represented and had no knowledge of the                 being deducted ?
           proceedings, even if he later had cognizance of the
           judgment which was given and availed himself in             4 . If question 3 must be answered in the latter sense,
           that regard of none of the legal remedies afforded              according to what yardstick must be the amount
           by the procedural law of the State in which                     disqualified from deduction be calculated ?
           judgment was given ?
     ( b ) Is it relevant in this connection that the time within
           which the legal remedy must be applied is one
           month from the day on which the defendant has
           cognizance of the judgment which has been                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
           given ?                                                     Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       3 March 1995 in the case of Intercod Sri v. Amministrazione
3 . Must Article 27 (2 ) of the Brussels Convention be                                    delle Finanze dello Stato
     interpreted as meaning that that provision is also                                        ( Case C-81/95 )
     applicable in a case in which, although the defendant
     was not declared to be in default of appearance , the                                       ( 95/C 119/20 )
     document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent
     document was not duly served on or notified to him in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sufficient time and the defendant was not lawfully                European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     represented in the proceedings ?                                  Genova , Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First
                                                                       Civil Section ), of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling


title: Case C-1/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2011 — Interseroh Scrap and Metal Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2011 — Interseroh Scrap and Metal Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)
   (Case C-1/11)
   2011/C 95/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Mainz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Interseroh Scrap and Metal Trading GmbH

      Defendant: Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1) also apply to those involved in the shipment process?

               2.

               If not, is Article 18(1) of that regulation restricted by EU primary law on the protection of business secrets?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the obligation under Article 18(1) of that regulation on the persons who arrange the shipments to disclose the name of the waste producer or waste collector to the consignee of the waste by means of the document set out in Annex VII limited by Article 18(4) in order to protect business secrets?

               4.

               If question 3 is answered in the affirmative, does the extent of the limitation depend on a weighing up of the interests (on the one hand, the business interests affected, on the other, protection of the environment) on a case-by-case basis?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1.


title: Case T-359/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Franklin and Others v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/13

         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Franklin and Others v Commission
   (Case T-359/05)
   (2005/C 315/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Franklin and Others (Sorée, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the implied decision refusing assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay collective compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, all Commission officials or other servants, had applied for their pension rights acquired in Belgium to be transferred to the Community scheme, in accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law adopted in 1991. In 2003, Belgium adopted a new law which, according to the applicants, prescribes more advantageous conditions for new transfers of that type. However, the applicants, having already transferred their rights, could not use the provisions of the 2003 law.
   Following a meeting to provide information, which took place on 9 December 2004, the applicants learned that the Commission did not propose to help its officials and temporary agents to obtain the transfer which was most satisfactory for them.
   By their action, they challenge that Commission decision, which they classify as a refusal of assistance in breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article, they also rely in support of their action on infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, the prohibition on arbitrary conduct, the obligation to give reasons, the principle of legitimate expectations and the rule 'patere legem quam ipse fecisti', and an abuse of powers.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Dublin, by order of that court of 12 February 1995, in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS against Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General (Case C-84/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/ 11
After that period had expired with no communication from              requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                   proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty .
requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty.                          H OJ No L 110 , 28 . 4 . 1992 , p . 52 .
(') OJ No L 166 , 28 . 6 . 1991 , p . 77 .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, by order of that court of 12 February 1995 , in the
                                                                      case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
                                                                      against Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General
Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of                                           ( Case C-84/95 )
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                           ( 95/C 137/21 )
                         ( Case C-83/95 )
                           ( 95/C 137/20 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, of 12 February 1995 , which was received at the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                       against     Minister         for    Transport, Energy       and
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal               Communications , Ireland and the Attorney General, on the
Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in             following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                Is Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 990/93 of
                                                                      26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
                                                                      Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) (') to be construed as
                                                                      applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking
1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its       the majority or controlling interest in which is held by an
     obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to           undertaking in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia
     bring into force and to communicate to the Commission            and Montenegro ) where such aircraft has been leased by the
     within the requisite time limit the laws, regulations and        owner for a term of four years from the 22 April 1992 to an
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with               undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is
     Council Directive 92/30/EEC of 6 April 1992 on the               not held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the
     supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated             said Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and
     basis ( ! );                                                     Montenegro )?
2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                    (') OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 9 of Directive 92/30/EEC provides that the Member             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and              Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994
administrative decisions necessary to comply with the                    in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Koln-West
Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith                                      Case C-85/95 )
to notify the Commission thereof.
                                                                                ( 95 /C 137/22 )
Having received no communication from the Greek
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Government concerning measures adopted in order to
                                                                      European Communities by*an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek               ( Federal Finance Court) of 12 October 1994 , which was
legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a
to the Government in question a formal letter before action .
Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt
                                                                      Koln-West, on the following questions:
Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
giving the Greek Government a period of two months                    1 . Is an invoice within the meaning of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of
within which to comply with the Directive .                                the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) only the original,
                                                                           that is to say, the original copy of the statement of
After that period had expired with no communication from                   account, or are carbon copies, duplicates or photocopies
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                        also to be regarded as being invoices in that sense ?


title: Joined Cases C-54/10 P and C-55/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. zoo v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Refusal to register signs 350 , 250 , 150 , 222 , 333 and 555 as trade marks for periodicals, books and game booklets — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Descriptive character — Obligation on OHIM to take account of its earlier decision-making practice)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/4

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. zoo v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Joined Cases C-54/10 P and C-55/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Refusal to register signs ‘350’, ‘250’, ‘150’, ‘222’, ‘333’ and ‘555’ as trade marks for periodicals, books and game booklets - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Obligation on OHIM to take account of its earlier decision-making practice)
   2011/C 340/07
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, radca prawny)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed the three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4 and R 1035/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of the word marks 150, 250 and 350 as Community trade marks — Breach of Articles 7(1)(c) and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-155/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Zwolle-Lelystad (Netherlands) lodged on 31 March 2011 — Bibi Mohammad Imran v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Zwolle-Lelystad (Netherlands) lodged on 31 March 2011 — Bibi Mohammad Imran v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-155/11)
   2011/C 219/02
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Zwolle-Lelystad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bibi Mohammad Imran

      Respondent: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 7(2) of the Family Reunification Directive (1) allow a Member State to refuse entry and residence to a family member, as referred to in Article 4 of the Family Reunification Directive, of a third country national lawfully residing in that Member State, exclusively on the ground that that family member has not passed the integration examination abroad as prescribed in the legislation of that Member State?

               2.

               Is it important in answering Question 1 that the family member concerned is a mother of eight, of whom seven are minors, lawfully residing in that Member State?

               3.

               Is it important in answering Question 1 whether, in the country of residence, accessible tuition is available to the family member in the language of that Member State?

               4.

               Is it important in answering Question 1 whether the family member concerned, given his or her educational background and personal circumstances, particularly medical problems, would be able to pass that examination in the near future?

               5.

               Is it important in answering Question 1 that no reviews take place in respect of the provisions of Article 5(5) and Article 17 of the Family Reunification Directive, Article 24 of the Charter or the principle of proportionality as contained in European Union law?

               6.

               Is it important in answering Question 1 that nationals of certain other third countries are exempt, purely on the basis of their nationality, from the obligation to pass the civic examination abroad?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).