title: Case T-324/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — VF Europe v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/44

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — VF Europe v Commission
   (Case T-324/16)
   (2016/C 305/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VF Europe BVBA (Bornem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, 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, order the European 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 that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-195/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Primagaz v OHIM — Reeh (PRIMA KLIMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark PRIMA KLIMA — Earlier Community figurative mark PRIMAGAZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character of a laudatory word element — Conceptual comparison — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Primagaz v OHIM — Reeh (PRIMA KLIMA)
   (Case T-195/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PRIMA KLIMA - Earlier Community figurative mark PRIMAGAZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Distinctive character of a laudatory word element - Conceptual comparison - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gerhard Reeh (Radnice, Czech Republic) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2014 (Case R 2304/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz SA and Mr Gerhard Reeh.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 January 2014 (Case R 2304/2012-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the action before it as regards the goods ‘apparatus for lighting, heating, drying and ventilating; activated carbon filters for ventilation purposes’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-263/98)

text:
C 278/28                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
     order to comply with Council Directive 93/65/EEC of                   financing for the sum of BEF 382 208 436 by way of
     19 July 1993 on the definition and use of compatible                  expenditure incurred for the advance payment of
     technical specifications for the procurement of                       export refunds;
     air-traffic management equipment and systems (1),
     alternatively by failing to take the measures necessary          2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has                       proceedings.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                      those in Case C-242/97 (2).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
                                                                      (2) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 6.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit laid down by
Article 9 of the Directive expired on 20 July 1994.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
The Commission asserts, in the alternative, that the                  PremieÁre Instance de Charleroi by judgment of that court
Directive confers on nationals of the Member States the               of 2 July 1998 in the case of Tibor Balog v. ASBL Royal
right to respond to invitations to tender prepared in                                Charleroi Sporting Club (RCSC)
accordance with the standards laid down pursuant to
and in accordance with the Directive. For that reason,                                       (Case C-264/98)
internal memoranda circulated by State ministries or                                           (98/C 278/51)
administrative authorities do not constitute an adequate
transposition measure.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
(1) OJ L 187, 27.7.1993, p. 52.                                       PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), Charleroi, of
(2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.                             2 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tibor
                                                                      Balog v. ASBL Royal Charleroi Sporting Club on the
                                                                      following question:
                                                                      Is it compatible with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                      with Article 53 of the Agreement on the European
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Kingdom                         Economic Area for a football club established in the
of Belgium against the Commission of the European                     territory of a Member State of the European Union to
                            Communities                               claim, on the basis of the rules and circulars of the
                          (Case C-263/98)                             national and international federations (URBSFA, UEFA,
                                                                      FIFA), payment of a transfer sum' on the occasion of the
                           (98/C 278/50)                              engagement of one of its former players, a professional
                                                                      footballer of non-Community nationality who has reached
                                                                      the end of his contract, by a new employer established in
An action against the Commission of the European                      the same Member State, in another Member State of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                European Union or the European Economic Area, or in a
the European Communities on 17 July 1998 by the                       non-member country?
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, General
Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade
and Development Cooperation, and H. Gilliams, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des Girondins.
                                                                      References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera
                                                                      Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           31 March 1998 in the cases of Salvat Editores SA and
                                                                               Others and J. CompanÄ Calbuig and Others
                                                                                (Cases C-265/98 to C-272/98)
1. annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
                                                                                (98/C 278/52)
     1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994
     on the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far                European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
     as it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community          Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of


title: Case C-118/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on  28 February 2006  — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 28 February 2006 — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6
   (Case C-118/06)
   (2006/C 121/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6
   Question(s) referred
   The Commissione Tributaria provinciale di Roma (Provincial Tax Court Rome) has referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
   Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net output value arising from regular engagement in independent activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on businesses)?

      (1)  OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.


title: Case T-193/99: Action brought on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrigley JR. Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
20.11.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/27
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                Guarantee Fund) (FOGASA), of the other part. Those agree-
                                                                        ments, which are based fundamentally on a reduction in the
The decision of the selection board to cancel certain of the            rate of interest normally applicable to loans granted by those
                                                                        two bodies, are intended to facilitate the scheduling and
questions in test (b), giving instructions to the markers not to
                                                                        deferment of repayment of the debts due to them.
take them into account and to readjust the weight attached to
the questions which remained valid on completion of that test,
altered the rules and the conditions which the selection                SNIACE considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a
board had itself originally laid down for the conduct of the            manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the alleged aid
competition.                                                            received by it does not constitute State aid, does not affect
                                                                        trace between Member States and does not distort or threaten
                                                                        to distort competition in the single market.
The grounds given for Decisions 21.06.99/IX.A2./023 and
IX.A.2 D(98)/500R-EL 501502 were insufficient.
                                                                        Second, the applicant undertaking maintains that it has acted
                                                                        in accordance with the rules in force in the Kingdom of Spain;
                                                                        those rules are applicable to all undertakings which find
                                                                        themselves in any of the situations specified therein, and not
                                                                        to any specific undertakings or sectors. Thus, the measures
                                                                        criticised by the Commission are, in reality, agreements
                                                                        concluded pursuant to the provisions of labour law and social
                                                                        security law. In particular, the recovery of debts owed by
Action brought on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A.                         undertakings to the Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    (General Social Security Treasury) in the event of non-payment
                                                                        of contributions is governed by the General Law on Social
                         (Case T-190/99)                                Security. It therefore involves measures of general application
                                                                        forming part of a system already in existence, in respect of
                                                                        which the Member States possess exclusive competence and
                        (1999/C 333/65)                                 on which the Commission has not expressed a view pursuant
                                                                        to Article 88(1) EC. In addition, as regards FOGASA, that body
                                                                        bears a responsibility for guaranteeing the payment of salaries
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       which forms an integral part of the essential provisions of
                                                                        contracts of employment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Lastly, the applicant states that the sole purpose of the alleged
European Communities on 24 August 1999 by SNIACE S.A.,                  aid is to facilitate the recovery of labour-related debts and
established in Madrid, represented by Fernando Rodrı́guez               debts owed to the Social Security Treasury; consequently, it
Carretero, Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño Botella and José Luis          cannot be said that the criteria enabling it to be characterised
Baró Fuentes, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in        as State aid have been fulfilled, since it neither emanates from
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 2 Rue Dahlias.              State funds nor reduces the lever of those funds.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Article 1(a) and (b) of the decision of the Com-
    mission of 28 October 1998;
— annul Article 2 of the decision of the Commission of
                                                                        Action brought on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrigley
    28 October 1998 inasmuch as it requires the Kingdom of
                                                                        JR. Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    Spain to take the necessary measures to recover from the
                                                                                Internal Market
    recipient the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully
    made available to it;
                                                                                (Case T-193/99)
— order the European Commission to pay to SNIACE all
    of the costs incurred by the applicant in the present                                       (1999/C 333/66)
    proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action is directed against Commission Decision              Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998 on State aid implemented                 European Communities on 1 September 1999 by WM. Wrig-
by Spain in favour of SNIACE SA (OJ 1999 L 149 of                       ley JR. Company, having its registered office in Chicago, USA,
16.6.1999, p. 40). The applicant undertaking, which is the              represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard Barth, Ulrich
recipient of the alleged aid, contests the categorisation as aid        Blumenröder, Christa Niklas-Falter and Maximillian Kinkeldey,
of the agreements concluded between that undertaking and                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
the Tesorerı́a de la Seguridad Social (Social Security Treasury),       Pierre Kihn, Office de Brevets, Ernest T. Freylinger, P.O. Box
of the one part, and the Fondo de Garantı́a Salarial (Salary            48, Strassen.
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/28              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    (Trademarks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 — Appeal                     This application seeks the annulment of the Commission
    No.R 216/1998-1;                                                      Decision of 2 June 1999 which condemns the aid granted to
                                                                          Seleco SpA by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region through the
— order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the                   intermediary of Friulia SpA and by the Italian Government
    defendant.                                                            through the intermediary of Ristrutturazione Elettronica SpA
                                                                          (REL), which consists in particular in the partial writing off by
                                                                          REL of LIT 16.8 billion of loans amounting to LIT 82 billion
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           in 1994 and the redemption by Seleco of the outstanding
                                                                          balance of LIT 65.2 billion for only LIT 20 billion in 1996, the
                                                                          grant of capital of LIT 13 billion by Friulia SpA in 1994 and
Trade mark concerned:         DOUBLEMINT -              Application       the grant by that company in 1996 of a convertible loan of
                              No. 000218255.                              LIT 12 billion at an interest rate of 7 % secured by four Seleco
                                                                          industrial trade marks.
Product or service:           Cosmetics, dentifrices, pharma-
                              ceutical, veterinary and sanitary
                              preparations, clothing, footwear,
                              headgear, games and playthings,             The Commission ordered the Italian Government to take the
                              coffee, tee, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapi-      necessary measures to recover the aid in question from Seleco
                              oca, biscuits, cakes, different con-        and, in the alternative, from the applicant, a company set up
                              diments and spices; etc (Inter-             by Multimedia during the administrative procedure.
                              national classes 3, 5, 25, 28 and
                              30).
                                                                          The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the              claims:
before the Board of           examiner.
Appeal:
                                                                          — Breach of the rights of the defence. It is argued on
Pleas in law relied on:       Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of              that point that no reference was ever made during the
                              Council Regulation (EC)No. 40/                  administrative procedure to the possibility that Multimedia
                              94.                                             might be jointly and severally liable for repayment of aid
                                                                              which the Commission considered illegal and incompatible
                                                                              with the common market. The applicant states that, in the
                                                                              successive phases of the procedure, the discussion between
                                                                              the Commission and the Italian Government only ever
                                                                              concerned the holding by Friulia and Italtel of two parcels
                                                                              of shares in Multimedia. There was never any discussion
                                                                              during the procedure or in any document published in the
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multime-                          Official Journal of any purported joint and several liability
dia SpA against the Commission of the European Com-                           on the part of Multimedia for the repayment required of
                           munities                                           Seleco. The applicant was never given an opportunity to
                                                                              express its views on that subject.
                        (Case T-195/99)
                                                                          — Breach of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty inasmuch as the
                        (1999/C 333/67)                                       defendant has not proved that the branches of the business
                                                                              released by Seleco and transferred to Multimedia received
                                                                              state aid. It is argued in that connection that, either the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            applicant did receive aid and it is then not clear why Seleco
                                                                              should be called upon to repay what the applicant received,
                                                                              or the applicant did not receive any undue advantage in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which case it is inexplicable that it should be required to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    repay what Seleco cannot repay. In fact, if it had been
European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multi-                      given the opportunity to do so the applicant could have
media SpA, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the Venice Bar,                proved that it paid a fair price for the branches of Seleco’s
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Elvinger, Hoss &                 business inasmuch as that price reflected the valuations
Prussen, 15 Cote d’Eich.                                                      made by an expert appointed by the relevant court.
The applicant claims that the Court should annul Article 2.1
of the Decision insofar as the Commission orders Italy in the             — Lack of competence, inasmuch as it is not for the
alternative to recover from Multimedia that part of the aid                   Commission to regulate the question of the transfer of civil
which cannot be recovered from Seleco, and make an order                      law relations between companies as this is a matter
for costs.                                                                    governed by national law.


title: Case F-7/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/30

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commission
   (Case F-7/07)
   (2007/C 69/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Thérèse Angioi (Valenciennes, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 14 February 2006 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) laying down the applicant's results in the pre-selection tests for contract agents EU 25;

               —

               annul the decision of EPSO and/or of the Selection Committee not to register the applicant in the data base of candidates who had passed the pre-selection tests;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of her action.
   By her first plea, the applicant claims that the Call for expression of interest published by EPSO on 20 June 2005 is contrary to Article 12(1) EC and Article 82(1) and (3)(e) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. It criticises in particular the fact that the Call for expression of interest defined the candidates' main language as that of their nationality (or, in the case of countries with more than one official language, the language of their compulsory education) and provided for pre-selection tests to be held, for each candidate, in a language other than their main language and for a choice to be made between English, French and German. Those provisions meant that candidates, first, were prevented from declaring as their principal language another Community language of which they had thorough knowledge without however having the corresponding nationality and, second, were obliged to take the tests in one of the three aforementioned languages. The system gives rise to differential treatment based on nationality which cannot be objectively justified by the requirements of the functions to be performed.
   The second plea alleges infringement of the principles of sound administration, equal treatment, objectivity and protection of legitimate expectations in that the applicant's pre-selection tests were marred by incidents which disturbed her and deprived her of some of the time allowed to her, without her having been authorised to start the tests over again or be granted extra time.
   By her third plea, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of the principle of equal treatment in that the questions put were chosen in a random manner in a base containing questions of very varying levels, the validity of some of which was dubious and, second, infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and transparency and the obligation to state reasons in that EPSO did not provide her with the questions put to her.


title: Case T-788/14: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — MPF Holdings v Commission

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/33

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — MPF Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-788/14) (1)

   (2017/C 178/49)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-623/13: Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/37

         Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission
   (Case T-623/13)
   2014/C 24/69
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martín, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 18 September 2013;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings; and

               —

               in addition, as a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit to the Court the documents to which it has denied access, so that the Court may examine them and ascertain whether the submissions made in the application are correct.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present proceedings, the applicant seeks annulment of the express rejection of its request for access to certain documents. The implied rejection of that request is the subject-matter of Case T-419/13 Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.


title: Case F-154/12: Action brought on 18 December 2012 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/30

         Action brought on 18 December 2012 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-154/12)
   2013/C 71/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The partial annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s seniority in grade at 16 November 2011 at the time of his appointment to a post in the Administrators’ function group, after having received certification.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the part of the decision of 23 January 2012 which amends the applicant’s seniority in grade and fixes it at 16 November 2011 instead of 1 January 2011;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria (Case C-475/98)

text:
C 71/12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               13.3.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i          Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
Stockholm by order of that court of 17 December 1998 in           of the European Communities against the Republic of
   the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB                                        Austria
                       (Case C-473/98)                                                   (Case C-475/98)
                        (1999/C 71/19)                                                    (1999/C 71/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of Kammarrätten i                   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
Stockholm of 17 December 1998, received at the Court              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Registry on 21 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in         on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB on            European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack and
the following question:                                           Frank Benyon, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                  Gómez de la Cruz, of the European Commission's Legal
Having regard to its aim, is a prohibition against the            Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
commercial use of trichloroethylene as described above a
measure which is compatible with Article 36 of the EC
Treaty and its application in Community law, even if it
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
contravenes Article 30 of the Treaty?
                                                                  1. Declare that, by having in 1995 individually
                                                                      negotiated, signed and entered into an Open Skies'
                                                                      agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector, the
                                                                      Republic of Austria acted in breach of its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                    under the EC Treaty, including Articles 5 and 52
Administratif de Lille (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of                thereof, and also contrary to the secondary law
that court of 19 November 1998 in the case of Clinique                adopted thereunder, in particular Council Regulation
GreÂgoire SA v Direction ReÂgionale des Impôts de                     (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of
                     Nord-Pas-de-Calais                               air carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)
                                                                      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers
                       (Case C-474/98)                                to intra-Community routes, Council Regulation (EEC)
                        (1999/C 71/20)                                No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for
                                                                      air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2)
                                                                      of 24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
                                                                      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                conduct for computerised reservation systems, and
European Communities by a judgment of the Fourth                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January
Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif (Administrative                 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at
Court), Lille, of 19 November 1998, which was received                Community airports;
at the Court Registry on 21 December 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Clinique GreÂgoire SA v
Direction ReÂgionale des Impôts de Nord-Pas-de-Calais, on
the following question:                                           2. In the alternative to part of the claim under (1),
                                                                      declare that:
Since they are regarded as reserving the exemption from
value added tax to transactions involving total human
                                                                      In so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded as
blood, are the provisions of Article 261 of the General
Tax Code compatible with the objectives laid down in                  having radically amended and thus replaced
Article 13(A)(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive                    agreements previously concluded, the Republic of
77/388/EEC (1) which provides that ¼ Member States                   Austria failed to comply with its obligations under
shall exempt the following under conditions which they                Article 234 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article 6
                                                                      of the Act of Accession, by not rescinding the
shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and
straightforward application of such exemptions . . . (d)              provisions contained in that agreement which are
supplies of human . . . blood', which must be understood              incompatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
                                                                      Article 52, and with the secondary law adopted
as including both total human blood and the components
thereof used separately and secondary products thereof?               thereunder, or by failing to take all legally possible
                                                                      steps to that end;
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                  3. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
                                                                      present proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 71/13
The pleas in law and main arguments in support are                             radically amended and thus replaced agreements
similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).                                         previously concluded, the Federal Republic of
                                                                               Germany has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, with regard to
(1 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.                        agreements concluded before the EC Treaty entered
(2 ) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
(3 ) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
                                                                               into force, and under secondary law, with regard to
(4 ) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.                                                 those agreements which were concluded after the EC
(5 ) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.                                Treaty entered into force, by not rescinding the
                                                                               provisions contained in those previously concluded
                                                                               agreements which are incompatible with the EC
                                                                               Treaty, in particular Article 52, and with the
                                                                               secondary law adopted thereunder, and by failing to
                                                                               take all legally possible steps to that end;
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                      3. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
of the European Communities against the Federal                                costs of the present proceedings.
                       Republic of Germany
                          (Case C-476/98)
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments in support are
                           (1999/C 71/22)                                 similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).
                                                                          (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     (3) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       (4) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
Communities on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                         (5) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
of the European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack
and Frank Benyon, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the European Commission's
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               in Northern Ireland, by order of that court of 9 November
                                                                          1998, in the case of Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd
                                                                          against the Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland
1. Declare that, by having individually negotiated, signed
      and concluded, in 1994 and 1996, an Open Skies'                                             (Case C-477/98)
      agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector, the
                                                                                (1999/C 71/23)
      Federal Republic of Germany acted in breach of its
      obligations under the EC Treaty, including Articles 5
      and 52 thereof, and also contrary to the secondary law
      adopted thereunder, in particular Council Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of                European Communities by an order of the Court of
      air carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)               Appeal in Northern Ireland of 9 November 1998, which
      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                was received at the Court Registry on 21 December 1998,
      to intra-Community routes, Council Regulation (EEC)                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eurostock Meat
      No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for               Marketing Ltd against the Department of Agriculture for
      air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2)               Northern Ireland, on the following questions:
      of 24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
      conduct for computerised reservation systems, and                   (1) May a Member State take interim protective measures
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January                      in accordance with Article 9(1) of Council Directive
      1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at                      89/662/EEC (1) when the Commission has made
      Community airports;                                                      Decision 97/534/EC (2) under Article 9(4) of the said
                                                                               Directive but postponed the coming into effect of that
                                                                               Decision?
2. In the alternative to part of the claim under (1),
      declare that:
                                                                          (2) If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, before the Member
                                                                               State may take such interim protective measures what,
                                                                               if any, degree of certainty, probability or possibility is
      In so far as the 1994 and 1996 agreements cannot, in                     required that the Commission will put into effect the
      view of specific provisions, be regarded as having                       said Decision?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 323/19
and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
on 24 October 2002, in which it:                                            and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
                                                                            which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which
      the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective
      appliances appropriate for the work concerned, the Italian            1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)
      of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                 2.    Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P
      minimum safety and health requirements for work with display                and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in
      screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning             Case C-25/01 P.
      of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 24 October 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        of 7 November 2002                                  the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur
                                                                             de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (1)
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain
       Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (1)                       (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                            Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality
                                                                            wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on
(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to                        label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation
the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender                                            No 2392/89)
          — Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/24)
                           (2002/C 323/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,                by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton                    the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie                    Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)                    propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     laying down general rules for the description and presentation
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in                          of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98                       by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,                         1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                  composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                        ris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth           on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-328/99: Action brought on 1 September 1999 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/21
Action brought on 1 September 1999 by the Italian                      The decision is unlawful in that it infringes and misapplies
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-                   Articles 87 and 88 EC and the EEA Agreement, both substan-
                                ties                                   tively and procedurally, and there is no adequate statement of
                                                                       reasons concerning the recovery of the aid at issue.
                         (Case C-328/99)
                        (1999/C 352/30)
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 September
                                                                       order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the case of Hotel
1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by its Agent,
                                                                       Bellavista di Litterini and Others against Ufficio Imposte
Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvoca-
                                                                       Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle
to dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                                Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento
the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaide.
                                                                                (Case C-330/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 352/31)
— Annul Decision C(1999) 1524 Final of the Commission of               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the European Communities of 2 June 1999, to the extent            European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
     to which it is contested in these proceedings;                    ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
                                                                       Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 1999, received
— In the alternative, annul the part of the said decision which        at the Court Registry on 2 September 1999, for a preliminary
     directs that sums constituting unlawful aid in relation to        ruling in the case of Hotel Bellavista di Litterini and Others v
     REL action in 1996 are to be recovered from Seleco;               Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di
                                                                       Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento on the
                                                                       following question:
— In the further alternative, annul the part of the said decision
     which directs that sums constituting unlawful aid are to be       ‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
     recovered from Seleco Multimedia Srl and from any other           Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
     undertaking which has benefited from asset transfers in           the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
     the operations concerned;                                         No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                       consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                       contributions of 1 %?’
                                                                       (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
The decision is unlawful in that it infringes and misapplies
Articles 87 and 88 EC (ex Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty)
and the corresponding provisions of the EEA Agreement
because it treats as unlawful aid the assistance referred to           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
above provided by REL (Ristrutturazione Elettronica SpA) and           gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 1 September
FRIULA, despite the fact that the aid from FRIULA cannot be            1999 in the appeal proceedings brought by Energie
regarded as State aid and despite the fact that in any event the       Steiermark Holding AG against Finanzlandesdirektion für
aid in both cases is consistent with that which might have                                          Steiermark
been provided (and in fact was provided in parallel) by private
investors operating under the normal conditions of a market
economy.                                                                                (Case C-339/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/32)
The decision is unlawful through lack of an adequate statement
of the reasons on which it is based (the reasons given are             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
inadequate, contradictory and manifestly illogical) because it         European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
treats the aid as unlawful without giving an appropriate and           hof (Higher Administrative Court), Austria, of 1 September
coherent explanation, taking account not only of the assistance        1999, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 1999,
given on a coordinated basis by private investors but also of          for a preliminary ruling in the appeal proceedings brought by
that from those deemed to be public investors without there            Energie Steiermark Holding AG against Finanzlandesdirektion
being any appreciable strategic differences between the two            für Steiermark (Tax Board for the Land of Styria) on the
categories.                                                            following questions:


title: Case C-325/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2014  — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2014 — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)
   (Case C-325/14)
   2014/C 315/67
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SBS Belgium NV

      Respondent: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

      Question referred

   Does a broadcasting organisation which transmits its programmes exclusively via the technique of direct injection — that is to say, a two-step process in which it transmits its programme-carrying signals in an encrypted form via satellite, a fibre-optic connection or another means of transmission to distributors (satellite, cable or xDSL-line), without the signals being accessible to the public during or as a result of that transmission, and in which the distributors then send the signals to their subscribers so that the latter may view the programmes — make a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case T-291/03: Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Grana Padano against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 289/26                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         29.11.2003
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Consorzio per                         Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
la Tutela del Formaggio Grana Padano against the Office                       sition Division:               registration.
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                       and Designs) (OHIM)                                    Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the Opposition
                                                                              Appeal:                        Division’s decision and rejection
                                                                                of the opposition.
                          (Case T-291/03)
                                                                              Pleas in law:                  —     The term ‘GRANA’ is not
                                                                                generic.
                          (2003/C 289/55)
                                                                                —     Breach of Article 13(1)(a),
                                                                                (b), (c) and (d) of Council
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2081/
                                                                                92 of 14 July 1992 on the
                                                                                protection of geographical
                                                                                indications and designations
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     of origin for agricultural
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                                       products and foodstuffs (1),
European Communities on 21 August 2003 by the Consorzio                                                            and of the national rules on
per la Tutela del Formaggio Grana Padano, represented by                                                           company designations of
Paolo Perani, Paolo Colombo and Alex Schmitt, lawyers.                                                             origin.
Biraghi S.p.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.                                                                                —     Likelihood of confusion
                                                                                (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
—     annul the registration of the Community trade mark
      No 736.934 GRANA BIRAGHI owned by Biraghi S.p.A.
      in so far as, in particular it is in conflict with the combined
      provisions of Article 142 of Regulation (EEC) No 40/94
      and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
                                                                              Action brought on 9 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Applicant for Com-               Biraghi S.p.A.
munity trade mark:                                                                                (Case T-306/03)
Community trade mark             Word mark ‘GRANA BIRAGHI’                                             (2003/C 289/56)
sought:                          — Application No 736.934 for
                                 products in Class 29: ‘Cheese, in
                                 particular cheese from cows’ milk,                             (Language of the case: German)
                                 mature cheese, hard cheese, whole
                                 cheeses, portions of cheese with
                                 or without rind, packaged cheese
                                 of various sizes, grated and pack-           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                 aged cheese.’                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Proprietor of mark or            The applicant Consorzio.                     9 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg (Germany),
sign cited in the oppo-                                                       represented by S. Risthaus, lawyer.
sition proceedings:
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Mark or sign cited in            Numerous national and inter-
opposition:                      national registrations and appli-
                                 cations to register the trade marks          —     annul the decision of 7 July 2003 of the Second Board
                                 ‘GRANA’ and ‘GRANA PADANO’                         of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                 and trade marks containing those                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
                                 terms in combination with figu-                    R 1012/2001-2;
                                 rative elements and words for
                                 products in Class 29.                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-92/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Pavia v Giovanni Giacchetto (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
C 200/30                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                14.7.2001
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-92/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-93/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Pavia v Giovanni                           the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Savona v Francesco
                               Giacchetto (1)                                                                     Amato (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/53)                                                                 (2001/C 200/54)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-92/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-93/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Pavia and Giovanni                        before that court between Questore di Savona and Francesco
Giacchetto on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC                    Amato on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty
Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third                        on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                      composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-
er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-               P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                        follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-530/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu (Republic of Poland) lodged on 18 December 2009 — Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa v Minister Finansów

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu (Republic of Poland) lodged on 18 December 2009 — Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-530/09)
   2010/C 63/45
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Are the provisions of Article 52(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that services consisting in the temporary provision of exhibition and fair stands to clients presenting their goods and services at fairs and exhibitions must be classified as services ancillary to fair and exhibition services referred to in those provisions, that is to say services similar to cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational and entertainment activities, which are taxed at the place where they are physically carried out,

               (b)

               or should it be accepted that they are advertising services taxed at the place where the customer has established his business on a permanent basis or has a fixed establishment for which the service is supplied, or, in the absence of such a place, the place where he has his permanent address or usually resides, in accordance with Article 56(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112,

                           —

                           on the basis that those services concern the temporary provision of stands to clients presenting their goods and services at fairs and exhibitions which is normally preceded by the drawing up of a design and visualisation of the stand and, possibly, transportation of parts of the stand and its assembly at the place where the fair or exhibition is organised, and the service supplier’s clients exhibiting their goods or services pay separately to the organiser of the relevant event fees for the very possibility of participating in the fair or exhibition which cover utility, fair infrastructure and media service costs and so forth,
                           each exhibitor is separately responsible for fitting out and constructing his own stand and in that respect uses the services at issue which require interpretation,
                           organisers charge visitors individually fees for entrance to their fair or exhibition which accrue to the organiser of the event and not to the supplier of the service?

      (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: Case C-95/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-95/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT)
   2013/C 171/07
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, assisted by H. Peytz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy SC and N. Travers BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Hall QC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-308/94: Cascades SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Liability for unlawful conduct - Fine - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances)

text:
C 209/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         O'Keeffe, Solicitor of the Law Society of Ireland, with an
                      of 14 May 1998                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v.
in Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG v. Commission of                Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                the European Communities (1)                       initially, Richard Lyal and GeÂraud de Bergues, and
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof              subsequently Richard Lyal and Guy Charrier) Ð
of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Turnover Ð                  application for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/
Determination of the amount Ð Mitigating circumstances)            601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard)
                       (98/C 209/63)                               (OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court of First
                                                                   Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
               (Language of the case: German)                      composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
                                                                   Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                   GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG, established at
                                                                   judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
Hamburg, Germany, represented by Gerhard Wiedemann
and Wolfgang Kirchhoff, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            1. Dismisses the application.
Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine and
Richard Lyal, subsequently by Richard Lyal and Dirk                2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission                    relating to the application for interim relief.
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
proceeding unter Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833          (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the
Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of                                 of 14 May 1998
     Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                         in Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT v.
     13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85                 Commission of the European Communities (1)
     of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
                                                                   (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                   Liability for the infringement Ð Fine Ð Statement of
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                          reasons)
     claims.
                                                                                (98/C 209/65)
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( ) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
 1
                                                                   In Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT, established at
                                                                   Amsterdam, represented by Tom R. Ottervanger and
                                                                   Francis Herbert, advocates of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Carlos Zeyen, 56Ð58 Rue Charles Martel v. Commission
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         of the European Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and
                      of 14 May 1998                               Wouter Wils) Ð application for annulment of Commission
                                                                   Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
in Case T-308/94: Cascades SA v. Commission of the                 proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
                  European Communities (1)                         33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ 1994, L 243 of 19.9.1994,
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                    p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended
Liability for unlawful conduct Ð Fine Ð Statement of               Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the
             reasons Ð Mitigating circumstances)                   Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
                                                                   Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                       (98/C 209/64)                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which
                                                                   it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
In Case T-308/94: Cascades SA, having its registered office             by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of
at Bagnolet (France), represented by Jean-Louis Fourgoux,               13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, Jacques Buhart, of the Paris              of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) at
Bar, Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, and David                      ECU 2 700 000.


title: Case T-841/16: Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Alex v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/55

         Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Alex v Commission
   (Case T-841/16)
   (2017/C 030/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alex SCI (Bayonne, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 September 2016;

               —

               declare and hold that the aid paid to the Côte-Basque-Adour Conurbation Authority (CABAB) by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the French State, the Aquitaine Regional Council and the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council is unlawful and incompatible with the common market;

         and consequently,

               —

               order the French State, the Aquitaine Regional Council, the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council, as decentralised state bodies, and the ERDF to recover the aid unlawfully paid, together with interest at the statutory rate as from the date on which that aid was made available;

               —

               order the European Commission to bear all the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees of EUR 5 000.

      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 the substantive unlawfulness of the decision of the European Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to notify the financing allocated to the ‘Technocité’ project, granted by the ERDF, the French Republic, the Aquitaine Regional Council and the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council to the CABAB.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the incompatibility of the financing with the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the non-performance of conditions to which the grant of the financing was subject.


title: Case T-124/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2015 — Finland v Commission (EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development — One-off financial correction — Eligibility of expenditure incurred for the purchase of second hand machinery and equipment — Exemption for micro-, small and medium-sized undertakings — Article 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2015 — Finland v Commission
   (Case T-124/14) (1)

   ((EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development - One-off financial correction - Eligibility of expenditure incurred for the purchase of second hand machinery and equipment - Exemption for micro-, small and medium-sized undertakings - Article 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006))
   (2016/C 038/63)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Aalto, J. Aquilina, P. Rossi and T. Sevón, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81), in so far as that decision excludes from European Union financing under the EAFRD certain expenditure of the Republic of Finland, amounting to EUR 92 782,58, as a result of their incompatibility with EU rules.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as that decision excludes from European Union financing under the EAFRD certain expenditure of the Republic of Finland, amounting to EUR 92 782,58, as a result of their incompatibility with EU rules;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-9/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil d'État section du contentieux, by order of 14 December 2001 in the case of Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant against Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

text:
2.3.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ments for taxing capital gains in the case of transfer of tax
                                                                       residence, such as result from Article 167 a of the General Tax
The national provisions establishing the label ‘Salaisons d’Au-        Code, as inserted by Article 24 of the 1999 Finance Law of
vergne’ and the regional labels may affect the free movement           30 December 1998, in the version in force at the date of the
of goods between Member States, particularly inasmuch as               challenged decree.
those provisions favour the marketing of goods of national
origin, to the disadvantage of imported goods. The application
of those provisions creates and maintains, in itself, a difference
between the treatment afforded to those two categories of
goods. Outside the material scope of Council Regulation
No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications               Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission
and designations of origin for agricultural products and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
foodstuffs (1), the concept of ‘indications of source’ approved
by the Court of Justice is capable of justifying an obstacle to                                 (Case C-16/02)
the free movement of goods only if it serves to protect
the significant reputation acquired by a product amongst                                        (2002/C 56/22)
consumers or a particular foodstuff originating in a certain
region. In the Commission’s view, the label ‘Salaisons d’Auverg-
ne’ and the regional labels do not constitute ‘indications of          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
source’ within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, inasmuch           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January
as they are attached not to a product or to a particular               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
foodstuff but to groups of products the special reputation of          represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
which is, however, neither alleged nor established.                    service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Commission Directive 1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999
                                                                             adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                             to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximations
d’État section du contentieux, by order of 14 December
                                                                             of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of
2002 in the case of Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant against
                                                                             the Member States relating to restrictions on the market-
  Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
                                                                             ing and use of certain dangerous substances and prep-
                                                                             arations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (1), or at any rate by
                         (Case C-9/02)                                       failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                        (2002/C 56/21)                                       the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1)
                                                                             of that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the French Conseil d’État,
section du contentieux (Council of State, ruling in a conten-
tious matter), received at the Court Registry on 14 January            Pleas in law and main arguments
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant against Ministère de l’Économie, des            The obligation imposed on Member States by the third
Finances et de l’Industrie (Ministry for the Economy, Finance          paragraph of Article 249 EC is such as to require them to
and Industry) on the following question:                               comply with the time-limits laid down in directives. The time-
Does the principle of freedom of establishment laid down in            limit in the present case expired on 29 February 2000 but
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43          France has not adopted the requisite measures.
EC) preclude the introduction by a Member State, for the
purpose of preventing the risk of tax avoidance, of arrange-           (1) OJ L 142 of 5 June 1999, p. 22.