title: Joined Cases C-288/09 and C-289/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (C-288/09), Pace plc (C-289/09) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Digital satellite television receivers and decoders with a recording function — Community Customs Code — Article 12(5)(a)(i) and (6) — Period of validity of a binding tariff information)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (C-288/09), Pace plc (C-289/09) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Joined Cases C-288/09 and C-289/09) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Digital satellite television receivers and decoders with a recording function - Community Customs Code - Article 12(5)(a)(i) and (6) - Period of validity of a binding tariff information)
   2011/C 179/03
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (C-288/09), Pace plc (C-289/09)

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

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings No 8528 71 13 (‘Apparatus with a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the Internet, and having a function of interactive information exchange, capable of receiving television signals (“set-top boxes with communication function”)’ and No 8521 90 00 (‘Other’, comprising ‘apparatus without a screen capable of receiving television signals, so-called “set-top boxes”, which incorporate a device performing a recording or reproducing function (for example, a hard disk or DVD drive)’ — ‘Set-top boxes’ (‘STBs’), designed to receive and to decode digital television signals by satellite, having a function of communication and which incorporate a hard disk

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that set-top boxes with a communication function and a hard disk drive, such as the Sky+ box, model DRX 280, are to be classified under subheading 8528 71 13 despite the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature.

               2.

               Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Article 12(1) and (2)(a), third indent, of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 12/97 of 18 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that customs authorities are obliged to issue binding tariff informations that are in conformity with the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature. If a disagreement arises between those authorities and economic operators as to whether those notes are in conformity with the Combined Nomenclature and on the classification of goods, it is for the economic operators to bring proceedings before the competent authority pursuant to Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended. The court seised shall rule on the classification of the product, if necessary after making a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice as provided in Article 267 TFEU. Furthermore, the Member State to which those authorities belong may call upon the committee provided for in Article 247 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8 of Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000.

               3.

               Article 12(5)(a)(i) of Regulation 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation No 1549/2006 must be considered a regulation within the meaning of that provision. A binding tariff information which no longer conformed to the Combined Nomenclature because of the entry into force of Regulation No 1549/2006 ceased to be valid after that date of entry into force.

               4.

               Article 12(6) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 254/2000, a regulation updating the Combined Nomenclature is adopted and that regulation does not set a time-period during which the holder of a binding tariff information which has ceased to be valid can none the less continue to rely on it, that holder is not entitled to continue relying on that binding tariff information.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


C 161/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-237/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-344/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/22)                                                       (2001/C 161/25)
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-237/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-344/99: Italian Republic v Com-
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                     mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-120/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-359/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/23)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/26)
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
the register of Case C-120/00: Commission of the European             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Communities v French Republic.                                        from the register of Case C-359/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix and l’Ariège,
                                                                      France): Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean-Marc Laboup.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/95 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/24)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-21/00 (1)
By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of                                      (2001/C 161/27)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-182/95: (reference for a preliminary      By order of 13 March 2001 the President of the Court of
ruling from Finanzgericht Hamburg): T. Port GmbH & Co v               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.                                           from the register of Case C-21/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa): Hamadeh Adnan v
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                            Sociétà Fiat Sava SpA.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-298/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Oelmühle Hamburg AG, Jb. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Unduly paid Community subsidy - Recovery - Application of national law - Conditions and limits)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/9
Ð compliance with that requirement must be proved                    That presupposes, however:
     within the time limits laid down in Article 28 of that
     Regulation, failing which the whole of the security
     becomes forfeit pursuant to Article 22(1) and (2) of            Ð that the good faith of the recipient has first been
     that Regulation.                                                     established, and
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
(2) OJ L 205, 3.8.1985, p. 5.                                        Ð that the conditions prescribed are the same as those
(3) OJ L 159, 1.7.1993, p. 112.                                           which apply with respect to the recovery of purely
                                                                          national financial benefits.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 16 July 1998
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-298/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    of 16 July 1998
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Oelmühle
Hamburg AG, Jb. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v.                       in Case C-355/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (1)              the Oberster Gerichtshof): Silhouette International
                                                                                Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v. Hartlauer
(Unduly paid Community subsidy Ð Recovery Ð                                            Handelsgesellschaft mbH (1)
    Application of national law Ð Conditions and limits)
                                                                     (Directive 89/104/EEC Ð Exhaustion of trade mark Ð
                         (98/C 299/15)
                                                                     Goods put on the market in the Community or in a non-
                                                                                member country)
               (Language of the case: German)                                                 (98/C 299/16)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       (Language of the case: German)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-198/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt                         published in the European Court Reports)
am Main for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Oelmühle Hamburg
AG, Jb. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG and                              In Case 355/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, on the               of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichtshof for a
principles of Community law applicable to measures taken             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
by national authorities for the recovery of an unduly paid           court between Silhouette International Schmied GmbH &
Community subsidy Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       Co. KG and Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, on the
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, M.                    interpretation of first Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
Wathelet, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.               21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von                   Member States relating to trade marks (2) as amended by
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May
16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 1992 (3) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
                                                                     Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet
                                                                     and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini,
Community law does not in principle preclude national                L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
legislation from allowing recovery of unduly paid                    Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
Community subsidies to be barred, on the basis of criteria           given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
such as loss of the enrichment, where:
                                                                     1. national rules providing for exhaustion of trade-mark
Ð the recipient of the subsidy had already, at the time                   rights in respect of products put on the market outside
     when it was granted, passed on the pecuniary                         the EEA under that mark by the proprietor or with its
     advantage resulting from it by paying the producer the               consent are contrary to Article 7(1) of first Council
     target price prescribed by Community law, and                        Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                          approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                          trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the
Ð any right or recourse against his suppliers is worthless.               European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;


title: Case T-24/10: Action brought on 27 January 2010 — CECA v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/43

         Action brought on 27 January 2010 — CECA v Commission
   (Case T-24/10)
   2010/C 100/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CECA SA (La Garenne Colombes, France) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister, E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1(1) and (2) of Commission decision C(2009) 8682 of 11 November 2009 insofar as it relates to the applicant and, in any event, annul Article 1(1) insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement in tin stabilisers between 16 March 1994 and 31 March 1996;

               —

               cancel the fines imposed on the applicant in Article 2;

               —

               if the Court does not annul the fines in their entirety, substantially reduce them pursuant to its full jurisdiction;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, annulment is sought of Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009 in Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers which finds that the applicant participated in two separate infringements of Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU), one in tin stabilisers and one in ESBO, and imposes a fine for each product.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its application:

               First, it is submitted that, on a proper application of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), the Akzo litigation (2) did not suspend the running of time and the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred for both infringements under the ten year ‘double limitation’ rule. The applicant claims that the Commission erred in law by finding that the period the Akzo proceedings were before the Court operated to suspend the running of time and wrongly concluded that the ten year limit provided for in Article 25(5) of the abovementioned Regulation could be extended in the present case.

               Second, the applicant claims that the Commission has demonstrated no legitimate interest in making a declaratory finding of infringements in respect of which it had no power to impose fines. In fact, the applicant submits that Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 allows the Commission to make a declaratory finding that an infringement has been committed if it does not impose a fine, provided that the it is demonstrated that the Commission has a legitimate interest.

               Third, and independently of the two first pleas, the applicant requests the Court to annul the declaratory finding enshrined in Article 1(1) of the contested decision on the basis of which it had participated in an infringement in tin stabilisers during the period 16 March 1994 — 31 March 1996 and contends that the Commission has demonstrated no legitimate interest in making such a finding.

               Fourth, and if the Court does not annul the fines in their entirety, the applicant contends that the Commission has not proved duration beyond 23 February 1999 and that therefore the fine imposed for the second cartel period should be reduced to reflect a shorter duration of the infringements.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (2)  Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2007, in Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03, Akzo Nobel Chemicals et Akcros Chemicals/Commission, [2007], ECR II-3523


title: Case C-386/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — UAB ‘Toridas’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos and Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — UAB ‘Toridas’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos and Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

   (Case C-386/16)
   (2016/C 343/47)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: UAB ‘Toridas’

      Other parties: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos, Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 138(1), 140(a) and/or 141 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read, inter alia, in conjunction with Articles 33 and 40 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those here at issue (in the main proceedings), the supply of goods by a taxable person who is established in the first Member State must be exempt under those provisions in the case where, before that supply transaction is entered into, the purchaser (that is to say, the person identified as being a taxable person in the second Member State) expresses an intention to sell the goods immediately, before transporting them from the first Member State, to a taxable person established in a third Member State, for whom those goods are transported (dispatched) to that third Member State?

               2.

               Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the fact that a portion of the goods was processed on the instructions of the taxable person established (identified for tax purposes) in the second Member State, prior to their being transported to the third Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-656/11 R: Order of the Judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 16 February 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/13

         Order of the Judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 16 February 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council
   (Case T-656/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
   2012/C 109/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Morison Menon Chartered Accountants (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Dubai Office (Dubai); and Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Sharjah Office (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2001 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and, second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity known as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountants’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-325/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/81/EC)

text:
C 289/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
      —    it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and         gations under Article 3 of that directive, the Court (Second
           on a selective basis;                                              Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
                                                                              Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
      —    it applies only to certain birds in small numbers;                 C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                              a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
      —    mention is made of:
           (a)    the species which are subject to the derogations;           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative measures necessary to comply with Commission
           (b) the means, arrangements or methods authorised for                    Directive 2000/21/EC of 25 April 2000 concerning the list
                  capture or killing;                                               of Community legislation referred to in the fifth indent of
                                                                                Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the French
           (c)    the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of
                  and place under which such derogations may be                     that directive;
                  granted;
                                                                              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
           (d) the authority empowered to declare that the required
                  conditions obtain and to decide what means,
                  arrangements or methods may be used, within what            (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                  limits and by whom;
           (e)    the controls which will be carried out.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                              in Case C-325/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                        of 16 October 2003                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
in Case C-307/02: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                     ties v French Republic (1)                                                 transpose Directive 98/81/EC)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                             (2003/C 289/15)
2000/21/EC — Labelling of dangerous substances — Failure
                             to transpose)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 289/14)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-325/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti) v Grand Duchy of
                                                                              Luxembourg (Agent: P. Gramegna): Application for a declar-
In Case C-307/02, Commission of the European Communities                      ation that, by transposing only part of Article 1 of and
(Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues                    Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October
and D. Petrausch): Application for a declaration that, by failing             1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                  of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330,
necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC                      p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
of 25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legislation                 obligations under Article 2 of that directive, the Court
referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council                   (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
Directive 67/548/EEC (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70), or in any                        the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
event not immediately informing the Commission of those                       F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-                judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 289/9
1.    Declares that by transposing only part of Article 1 of Directive      1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
      EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-                     1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      organisms and Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 90/                     of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition
      219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically                of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered
      modified micro-organisms in the version in Directive 98/81,                 by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                      and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of
      obligations under Article 2 of Directive 98/81;                             qualifications, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                       of 16 October 2003
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
in Case C-388/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                                in Case C-423/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
               to transpose Directive 1999/42/EC)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Environment — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31/EC)
                         (2003/C 289/16)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/17)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-388/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan,
assisted by A. Colins): Application for a declaration that, by              In Case C-423/02, Commission of the European Communities
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                   (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/42/EC of                 Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond):
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June 1999                   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications              laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
in respect of the professional activities covered by the Direc-             comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999
tives on liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-                  on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) or, in any event,
plementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifi-              by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the
cations (OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77), or in any event by failing to               United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
notify those provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed               failed to fulfil fully its obligations under Article 18 of
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second           that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                       P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporte-
Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;                   ur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 Octo-
judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                                   ber 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-577/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Proges v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/65

         Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Proges v Commission
   (Case T-577/08)
   (2009/C 44/110)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Proges srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Falcetta, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision, thereby giving rise to all consequential measures, including compensation for damages;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with all related fees and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against the measure by which the Commission declined to award the applicant the contract covered by invitation to tender ENV.G.1./SER/2008/0050 for the creation of land use models and, in particular, for the assessment of environmental impact.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

               —

               the decision was incorrect in so far as it stated that the applicant's bid focused exclusively on the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model; in any event, the tender specifications specifically require the integrated use of ‘social, economic and environmental institutional indicators of land use changes’, with DPSIR being the most internationally established tool for the management and integration of such indicators. Moreover, DPSIR has been developed and properly used by the European Environment Agency. The tool in fact proposed by the applicant is a DPSIR model updated in accordance with an innovative methodology and already successfully used in several projects of the United Nations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN);

               —

               contrary to what is stated in the contested decision, it is specifically stated in the applicant's bid that a land use model will be developed integrating the various models arising from the Sixth Framework Research Programme;

               —

               there is no reason to doubt the appropriateness of involving the applicant's director in the implementation of the project;

               —

               geographical representativeness is rightly not referred to in the invitation to tender since the project is not concerned with development, integration and/or inter-European cohesion. Furthermore, it is not understood on what basis, for the purposes of assessing a company, European experience is deemed more valuable than the United Nations and IUCN experience possessed by the applicant.


title: Case C-402/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou — Cyprus) — Cypra Ltd v Kypriaki Dimokratia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Animal health — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Products of animal origin intended for human consumption — Official controls — Appointment of an official veterinarian — Slaughter of animals)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/5

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou — Cyprus) — Cypra Ltd v Kypriaki Dimokratia
      (Case C-402/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Animal health - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Products of animal origin intended for human consumption - Official controls - Appointment of an official veterinarian - Slaughter of animals)
      (2015/C 016/06)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cypra Ltd

         Defendant: Kypriaki Dimokratia

         Operative part of the judgment

      The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted, in principle, as not precluding the competent authority determining the time at which the slaughter of animals takes place, with a view to the appointment of an official veterinarian for the purposes of supervising the slaughter, and refusing to provide such a veterinarian on the day and at the time determined by the slaughterer, unless it is objectively necessary for the slaughter to take place on a specific day, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Action brought on 2 October 1997 by Associazione G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-263/97)

text:
 C 387/20                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 12 . 97
 annulment of Commission Decision PT-C(95)543 of                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 12 December 1995 reducing financial assistance — the                                          of 30 September 1997
 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;             in Case T-122/96 : Federazione Nazionale del Commercio
 B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has            Oleario ( Federolio ) v. Commission of the European
given a judgment on 7 November 1997, in which it:                                                  Communities (')
                                                                        (Agriculture — Common organization of the markets —
 1 . dismisses the action;                                             Olive oil — Consumption aid — Regulation (EC)
                                                                       No 887/96 — Action for annulment — Association of
                                                                                traders — Inadmissibility)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the                                             ( 97/C 387/38 )
     costs of the proceedings on the application for interim
     measures .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(<) OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-122/96 : Federazione Nazionale del Commercio
                                                                       Oleario ( Federolio ), established in Rome, represented by
                                                                       Livia Magrone Furlotti, of the Rome Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
                                                                       Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and Paolo
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Ziotti ) — application for partial annulment of
                       of 30 September 1997                            Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 887/96 of 15 May 1996,
                                                                       amending Regulation ( EEC) No 2677/85 laying down
in Case T-151/95 : Instituto Europeu de Formação                       implementing rules in respect of the system of
Profissional Lda ( INEF ) v. Commission of the European                consumption aid for olive oil ( OJ L 119 , 16 . 5 . 1996 , p. 16
                          Communities (')                              and OJ L 254, 25 . 9 . 1985 , p. 5 , respectively ) — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
(European Social Fund — Reduction of financial                         García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
assistance — Actions for annulment of measures — Time
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 September
                     limits — Inadmissibility)                         1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                           ( 97/ C 387/37 )
                                                                       1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case T-151/95 : Instituto Europeu de Formação
                                                                       (') OJ C 370 , 7 . 12 . 1996 .
Profissional Lda ( INEF ), established at Oporto ( Portugal ),
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
initially, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Günter Wilms and,
subsequently, Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson )              Action brought on 2 October 1997 by Associazione
— application for annulment of the Commission 's                      G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina against Commission of the
decision of 2 December 1991 reducing the aid granted by                                       European Communities
the European Social Fund in case 991005 PI in favour of
a vocational training programme operated in Portugal by                                           ( Case T-263/97 )
the applicant — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                                ( 97/C 387/39 )
Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President; A.
Kalogeropoulos and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 30 September 1997, the operative part                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
of which is as follows :
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
1 . the application is dismissed;                                      the European Communities on 2 October 1997 by
                                                                       Associazione G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina, represented by
2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                       Gian Luca Lemmo and Vincenzo Mormile , of the Naples
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Naples at 31 Via del
                                                                       Parco Marguerita .
(') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should annul
                                                                       Commission Decision C(97) 1261 of 15 May 1997.
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 387/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Region of
                                                                        Tuscany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
By the contested decision, the defendant, amending
Decision C(95 ) 444/3 of 5 April 1995 concerning the                                              ( Case T-265 /97 )
grant of a contribution from the EAGGF, changed the                                                  ( 97/C 387/40 )
Leader II Operational Programme as regards Point 1.3 and
Point 6.1 , and in so doing failed to include among the
areas for action the territory of the Comunita Montana                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Penisola Sorrentina, since 'on the basis of the provisions of
the programme, it does not appear necessary to promote                  An action against the Commission of the European
and implement further Programmi di Azione Locale ( Local                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Action Programmes — " PALs "), in view of the fact that in              the European Communities on 12 May 1997 by the
the latter area socioeconomic development is more                       Region of Tuscany, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia
advanced and more integrated than in the other areas                    Bora , of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in
concerned '. According to the applicant, those statements               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue
are not only incorrect but also lack any basis whatsoever.              de Vianden, and subsequently referred, on the ground of
                                                                        manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, to the
                                                                        Court of First Instance by order of the Court of Justice of
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement            1 October 1997 .
of Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome, breach of essential
procedural requirements, breach of the obligation of
sound administration and of the principle of the                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
protection of legitimate expectations, as well as a total
lack of any statement of reasons and manifest lack of any
proper basis.                                                           — annul Memorandum VI/040551 of the European
                                                                            Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —
                                                                            of 21 November 1994,
It is alleged, first, that the contested decision is based on
the misconception that a PAL had already been approved                  — annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
for the area in question, in disregard of the fact that the                 — by which the European Commission withdrew the
PAL submitted by the applicant had not been granted                         Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated
financing. Furthermore, the area in question is not among                   Mediterranean Programme ( IMP ) for Project
the most developed in Campania .                                            No 88.20.IT.006.0 ( works for the supply of potable
                                                                            water in Tuscany ),
The applicant also alleges that the choice made by the
defendant is contradictory. It is considered in that regard             — annul the European Commission's memorandum of
that in the Regional Programme for implementation of the                     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
Leader II, described above, the Campania Region, in                          7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
applying Directive 75/268/EEC ('), initially included                        it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
Penisola Sorrentina among the so-called 'less-favoured '
areas for action on the basis of certain socio-economic
indicators and then, in the light of the same indicators,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
decided that it was unnecessary to promote and
implement further PALs in that area .                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are those adduced
                                                                        in Case T-81 /97 Region of Tuscany v. Commission (').
The defendant confined itself to excluding the Sorrentina
Area on the ground that it was developed, without                       (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997, p . 21 .
however giving the slightest indication of the reasons
justifying that decision and without undertaking an
appropriate inquiry.
In the applicant's view, such an inquiry would have made
it clear that the area in question is classified, within the            Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Azienda Agricola
meaning of the abovementioned Directive 75/268/EEC, as                  Tre e Mezzo against Commission of the European
 'a mountain area and less favoured area ' and that, for that                                          Communities
precise reason, it was included in the Leader II                                                   ( Case T-269/97 )
Programme, among priority areas for action .
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/41 )
 (') Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain
     and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas ( OJ                     (Language of the case: Italian)
     L 128 , 19 . 5 . 1975 , p. 1 ).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of


title: Case T-109/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA THERAPY — Earlier national word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY)
   (Case T-109/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPA THERAPY - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 113/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu, L. De Brouwer and D. Moreau, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-291/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Francesco Guarnieri & Cie v Vandevelde Eddy VOF

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Francesco Guarnieri & Cie v Vandevelde Eddy VOF
   (Case C-291/09)
   2009/C 267/56
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesco Guarnieri & Cie

      Defendant: Vandevelde Eddy VOF

      Question referred

   Do Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Community preclude a claimant of Monegasque nationality, who lodges a claim in Belgium for payment of invoices relating to the delivery of ‘twister-glazen’ (glasses) and tea-lights with accessories, from being required, upon application by a defendant of Belgian nationality, to give security for the costs and damages arising from the proceedings which he may be ordered to pay?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-311/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Articles 69 and 71 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit — Frontier workers — Retention of benefit entitlement when seeking employment in another Member State)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              ployment benefit, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Articles 69 and 71 of the regulation;
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    2.     Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                       of 6 November 2003                                    (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
in Case C-311/01: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social
security — Articles 69 and 71 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
71 — Unemployment benefit — Frontier workers — Reten-
tion of benefit entitlement when seeking employment in
                      another Member State)                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 November 2003
                           (2004/C 7/16)
                                                                             in Case C-313/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            the Corte suprema di cassazione): Christine Morgenbesser
                                                                                v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli avvocati di Genova (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Freedom of establishment — Enrolment in the register of
                   in the European Court Reports)                            ‘praticanti’ — Recognition of diplomas — Access to regu-
                                                                                lated professions)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/17)
In Case C-311/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Michard and H. van Vliet) v Kingdom of the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Netherlands (Agents: H. G. Sevenster and I. van der Steen):
Application for a declaration that, by refusing to allow wholly
unemployed frontier workers to make use of the possibility                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
under Article 69 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                                              in the European Court Reports)
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
to members of their families moving within the Community,
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                           In Case C-313/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), of going,                   EC by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
under the conditions laid down in that provision, to one or                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
more Member States in order to seek employment there while                   Christine Morgenbesser and Consiglio dell’Ordine degli avvo-
retaining their entitlement to unemployment benefit, the                     cati di Genova, on the interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 12 EC,
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations              14 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 149 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
under Articles 69 and 71 of the regulation, the Court (Fifth                 composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), acting for                President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr
the President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and S. von Bahr,                 Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    13 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
6 November 2003, in which it:
                                                                             Community law precludes the authorities of a Member State from
1.    Declares that, by refusing to allow wholly unemployed frontier         refusing to enrol the holder of a legal diploma obtained in another
      workers to make use of the possibility under Article 69 of             Member State in the register of persons undertaking the necessary
      Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                  period of practice for admission to the bar solely on the ground that
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed         it is not a legal diploma issued, confirmed or recognised as equivalent
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their              by a university of the first State.
      families moving within the Community, as amended and
      updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
      1983, of going, under the conditions laid down in that                 (1) OJ C 289 of 10.10.2001.
      provision, to one or more Member States in order to seek
      employment there while retaining their entitlement to unem-


title: Case T-175/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Gordon v Commission (Officials — Action for annulment — Career development report — Total and permanent invalidity — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Actions for damages — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Gordon v Commission
   (Case T-175/04) (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Career development report - Total and permanent invalidity - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Actions for damages - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 82/69)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Donal Gordon (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially M. Byrne, solicitor, and subsequently J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Action, first, for annulment of the decision of 11 December 2003 rejecting the complaint concerning the decision of 28 April 2003 confirming the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, and, secondly, for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the application for annulment;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for damages as inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


title: Case C-96/01 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2001 by Galileo Company and Galileo International, LLC against the order dated 15 December 2000 of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-113/99 between Galileo Company and Galileo International, LLC, supported by Amadeus Global Travel Distribution SA, and Council of the European Union, supported by Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 134/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
      account the impact of the reserved sector when setting its       Galileo International, LLC, established in Rosemount, Illinois,
      charges for services in the competitive sector. It would         United States of America, represented by Mr Richard Plender
      merely be required to comply with Akzo (2), that is to say,      QC, instructed by Ms Katherine Holmes and Mr Daniel Austin,
      to cover at least its variable costs.                            solicitors, of Richards Butler, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg.
      The judgment does not explain how reserved rights
      affected costs; nor does it indicate how that should have
      been determined.
                                                                       The Appellants seek the following orders from the Court of
—     Infringement of Article 88 EC                                    Justice:
      The judgment disregards the broad discretion attributed
      to the Commission in relation to complex appraisals of           1.    That the Contested Order be set aside.
      an economic nature. However, it is clear from Article 88
      EC that the Commission must enjoy a broad discretion,
      not only in order to assess whether State aid is compatible      2.    That the plea of admissibility raised by the Council
      with the common market, but also to classify a measure                 and supported by the Commission as interveners be
      as State aid when the form of State intervention under                 dismissed.
      investigation is complex.
—     Infringement of Article 87 EC                                    3.    That the Application be declared admissible.
      The judgment errs in holding that all advantages con-
      ferred by the State constitute aid; on the contrary, only        4.    That the case be referred back to the CFI so that the CFI
      the transfer of financial resources may be so classified.              may determine the Application on the merits.
      The judgment has distorted the notion of normal market
      conditions.                                                      5.    That the Council do pay the costs of this appeal and the
                                                                             costs of determining the Council’s plea of admissibility,
                                                                             including the costs of responding to the Commission’s
(1) OJ L 164 of 9.6.1998, p. 37.                                             Statement of Intervention.
(2) Case C-62/86 (1991) ECR I-3359.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       a)    In finding that the contested measure concerns the
Appeal brought on 27 February 2001 by Galileo Company                        applicants in their objective capacity as ‘system’ vendor,
and Galileo International, LLC against the order dated                       in the same way as any other system vendor, the CFI
15 December 2000 of the Second Chamber of the Court                          erred in law in the following material respects:
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-113/99 (1) between Galileo Company and Galileo Inter-
national, LLC, supported by Amadeus Global Travel
                                                                             i)    By failing to take into account and apply the
Distribution SA, and Council of the European Union,
                                                                                consistent case law of the Court of Justice that an
supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                individual trader, that forms part of a group of
                                                                                traders that are fixed and identifiable when the
                         (Case C-96/01 P)                                          contested measure is made, may nevertheless be
                                                                                individually concerned by that measure. Such a
                                                                                trader may be individually concerned to the extent
                         (2001/C 134/12)                                           that the measure applies to undertakings engaged in
                                                                                the relevant trade at the time when it was adopted,
An appeal against the order dated 15 December 2000 of the                          and the measure fails to make transitional arrange-
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                      ments to protect them against substantial detriment.
Communities in case T-113/99 between Galileo Company and
Galileo International, LLC, supported by Amadeus Global
Travel Distribution SA, and Council of the European Union,                   ii)   By failing to appreciate that the fact that a measure
supported by Commission of the European Communities,                               may be of legislative nature applying to a category
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            of traders in general does not prevent it in certain
Communities on 27 February 2001 by Galileo Company,                                circumstances from affecting some of the market
established in Windsor, Berkshire, United Kingdom, and                             participants concerned individualy.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 134/9
     iii)  By assimilating the position of the existing four            Pleas in law and main arguments
           global CRS operators with all other operators active
           on the relevant market such as system vendors,               Article 40 of BAA’s Articles, which prevents any person from
           airlines or subscribers and in so doing failed to apply      controlling more than 15 % of the company, restricts portfolio
           the case law of the Court of Justice and, in particular
                                                                        investment, and restricts direct investment and, by the same
           the Court’s decision in Bock and Piraiki-Patraiki.           token, establishment: such restrictions fall under Articles 56
                                                                        and 43 of the EC Treaty. While the restriction is not explicitly
b)   In finding that exceptional economic circumstances do              of a discriminatory nature, such a restriction, liable to hinder
     not mean that the Appellants are individually concerned            the exercise of these freedoms, must be justified by ‘imperative
     by the contested measure the Court of First Instance erred         requirements in the general interest’ and be necessary and
     as a matter of law:                                                appropriate for these requirements.
     i)    By failing to apply the principles laid down in the          The UK authorities have failed to demonstrate the imperative
           judgments of the Court of First Instance in Codorniu         requirements of general interest which are to be protected by
           v. Council and Extrament Industrie v. Council and            the rights attached to the Special share and by the 15 % equity
           subsequently applied by the Court of First Instance          limit and, thus, a fortiori, their proportionality, and it therefore
           and the Court of Justice and/or failing to distinguish       must be concluded that the restrictions on the free movement
           those cases adequately or at all.                            of capital and on establishment created thereby are in violation
                                                                        of the obligations of the Member State under Articles 43 and
     ii)   By failing to take account of the decision of the            56 of the Treaty.
           Court of First Instance in Case T-60/96, Merck and
           others.                                                      A breach of the Treaty may occur upon the introduction by a
                                                                        Member State of restrictions on establishment or capital
                                                                        movements, by whatever means. In relation to BAA the
(1) OJ C 226, 7.8.1999, p. 34.                                          measures introduced by mechanisms of company law were
                                                                        introduced by the State in its capacity as public authority and
                                                                        are clearly intended to remain thus since Article 10(1) of BAA’s
                                                                        Articles only allows the Special share to be transferred to ‘one
                                                                        of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State, another Minister of the
                                                                        Crown or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown’.
                                                                        Consequently, and in order in particular to uphold the
                                                                        uniformity and supremacy of Community law, the adoption
                                                                        by a Member State of the mechanisms of private company law
                                                                        to introduce restrictions on Treaty freedoms can in no way
Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission                    avoid the examination of the compatibility of such restrictions
of the European Communities against the United                          with the Treaty.
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                        After such examination the Commission has reached the
                          (Case C-98/01)                                conclusion that the restrictions contained in Articles 10 and
                                                                        40 of the Articles of Association of BAA are incompatible
                                                                        with the provisions of Articles 43 and 56 of the Treaty on the
                         (2001/C 134/13)                                freedoms of establishment and capital movements.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 27 February 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Mr Frank Benyon and Ms Maria Patakia, acting as agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the House of
                                                                        Lords by order of that court of 8 February 2001, in the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             case of 1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumi-
                                                                        ficio S. Rita S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hy-
a)   declare that the provisions setting a limitation on interests                            grade Foods Limited
     in voting shares in the BAA plc company (Article 40 of
     the Articles of Association), as well as the authorisation                                  (Case C-108/01)
     procedure on the disposal of assets of the company or
     control in subsidiaries and winding-up (Article 10 of the
     Articles of Association) are incompatible with Articles 43                                  (2001/C 134/14)
     and 56 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
b)   order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         European Communities by an order of the House of Lords, of


title: Joined Cases C-411/09 to C-420/09: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2010 (references for preliminary rulings from the tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — France) — Tereos, Vermandoise Industries SA, Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA, Roquette Frères SA, Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA, Cruistal Union, Lesaffre Frères SA, Sucreries Bourdon, SAFBA, Sucreries du Marquenterre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2010 (references for preliminary rulings from the tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — France) — Tereos, Vermandoise Industries SA, Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA, Roquette Frères SA, Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA, Cruistal Union, Lesaffre Frères SA, Sucreries Bourdon, SAFBA, Sucreries du Marquenterre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   (Joined Cases C-411/09 to C-420/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/40

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-81/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Minister for Finance

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/42

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Minister for Finance
   (Case C-81/15)
   (2015/C 138/56)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE

      Defendant: Minister for Finance

      Question referred

   May Directive 92/12/EEC (1), in the light of the general principles of EU law and, in particular, the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality thereof, be interpreted, in a case such as this, as prohibiting the implementation of legal provisions of a Member State, such as Article 108 of the Greek Customs Code, according to which the authorised warehousekeeper of goods moved from the tax warehouse thereof under a duty suspension arrangement, which departed the arrangements in question irregularly through smuggling, may be declared as jointly liable for the payment of administrative fines, on the ground of smuggling, regardless of whether the warehousekeeper had, at the time when the infringement was committed, possession of the goods, on the basis of the rules of private law, and, furthermore, regardless of whether the perpetrators of the infringement involved in that movement had concluded a particular contractual relationship with the authorised warehousekeeper from which they can be seen to have acted as agents of the authorised warehousekeeper?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).


title: Case C-390/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court) by decision of that court of 7 September 2004 in the case of GöteborgsOperan AB v Skatteverket

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court) by decision of that court of 7 September 2004 in the case of GöteborgsOperan AB v Skatteverket
   (Case C-390/04)
   (2004/C 273/33)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 7 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of GöteborgsOperan AB against Skatteverket on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of Article 17 and the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive (1) for subsidies such as those mentioned in the latter provision to be taken into account when determining the right to deduct input tax also in cases where the input tax relates to goods or services that are solely to be used for transactions in respect of which value added tax is otherwise deductible?
               If the answer to the first question is yes, an answer to the following questions is also requested.

               2.

               Is it compatible with the provision on subsidies in the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive, for reasons of equal competition or for other reasons, to apply the provision only within certain sectors specially designated by the Member State?

               3.

               Is the provision on subsidies in the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive to be regarded as including also such economic support as is given on a continuous basis by a regional authority to a company wholly owned by it so that the company may carry out such cultural activity as might be carried out directly by the regional authority? Is it of any significance if the support is paid by another company owned by the regional authority and which is a parent company of the first company?

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


title: Case T-413/11: Action brought on 27 July 2011 — Welte-Wenu v OHIM — Commission (Representation of a circle of 12 stars on a blue background)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/20

         Action brought on 27 July 2011 — Welte-Wenu v OHIM — Commission (Representation of a circle of 12 stars on a blue background)
   (Case T-413/11)
   2011/C 298/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Welte-Wenu GmbH (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: T Kahl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12.5.2011 — Case R 1590/2010;

               —

               reject the appeal of the European Union against the decision of the Cancellation Division on the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark EDS EUROPEAN DRIVESHAFT SERVICES (and thereby that application itself);

               —

               order the European Union to pay the costs of the cancellation and appeal proceedings and the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing a circle of 12 stars on a blue background for goods in Classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark No 2 180 800

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: European Commission.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The registration of the Community trade mark was contrary to Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark at issue.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upholding of the appeal and cancellation of the Community trade mark at issue.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(g)(h) and (i) and Articles 55 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 6ter(1)(c) of the Paris Convention and Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95, since the registration of the Community trade mark was not contrary to the provisions of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-628/10 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2010 by Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/17

         Appeal brought on 29 December 2010 by Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-628/10 P)
   2011/C 72/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola Alén, abogado, A. João Vide, abogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05 insofar as it rejects the pleas in law alleging manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 23(2) Regulation 1/2003 (1), failure to state sufficient reasons and breach of the principle of equal treatment for the finding that Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. were jointly and severally liable;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Spain insofar as it relates to the appellants and reduce the fine imposed on the appellants accordingly; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the appellants submit that the Commission and the General Court misapplied Article 101(1) of the TFEU Treaty and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 by holding SCC and SCTC liable for the infringement committed by WWTE. In particular, the appellants argue that joint control is not sufficient to demonstrate they were in a position to exercise decisive influence over the conduct of WWTE during the period prior to May 1998. In any case, even if it were possible to attribute liability in this manner, both parents exercising joint control had to be taken into account for the purposes of identifying a single economic unit. In the alternative, the appellants submit that, by failing to state sufficient reasons for holding them liable, the Commission and then the General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU. In addition, for the period after May 1998, the General Court's judgment deprives the appellants of their rights derived under the general principles of EU law, the rights contained in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now part of the Lisbon Treaty and therefore having the full weight of primary law.
   Second, the appellants submit that the General Court breached Article 48(2) of its rules of procedure, the appellants’ rights of defence and Article 296 TFEU by allowing the Commission to introduce a new argument and amend its pleadings in a reply to a written question. The appellants further submit that the General Court may not clarify in the judgment (and therefore ex post facto) the reasoning applied in the Commission's decision.
   Finally, the appellants submit that, by treating other undertakings more favourably, the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. On the one hand, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in defining the method for attributing liability, in particular by adopting a dual basis method which served to discriminate between companies on the strength of their case on appeal but otherwise failed to establish a standard. On the other hand, the appellants submit that the General Court applied the method for attributing liability in a discriminatory manner, either by failing to apply the dual basis test to Universal Corporation and Universal Leaf or by failing to apply to SCC and SCTC the method applied to Universal Corporation and Universal Leaf.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
   OJ L 1, p. 1


               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/60

         Removal from the Register of Case T-52/04 (1)

   (2004/C 262/112)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 6 July 2004, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-52/04, Luis Escobar Guerrero v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-609/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — BlackRock v OHIM (SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/33

         Action brought on 22 November 2013 — BlackRock v OHIM (SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY)
   (Case T-609/13)
   2014/C 24/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BlackRock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 572/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 748

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-112/01: Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 275/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug against
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-112/01)
                           of 7 June 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 275/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug, residing in
(Officials — Re-assignment of the applicant to a third                     Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the
derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in
2000 on the basis of Annex X — Manifest inadmissibility                    —     annul the decision definitively establishing her staff report
   of the action directed against the Commission’s replies)                      for the period 1997-1999;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 275/21)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant in the present case contests certain assessments
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           contained in her staff report for the period 1997-1999.
                                                                           In support of her claim, she pleads:
In Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                    —     breach of the staff report procedure as laid down in the
bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for                      guidelines for staff reports published on 28 July 1989;
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                           —     a manifest error in the present case, resulting from
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment directed, first, against the measure contained in                  confusion between sick leave and absenteeism, as regards
                                                                                the assessments appearing under the heading ‘Consistency
one of the letters from the Director of the Publications Office
                                                                                of performance’.
sent to the applicant in reply to his request to be reassigned to
a third State, dated 6 June 2000, and, secondly, against the
implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 21 July 2000
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli
                                                                           S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Case T-135/01)
2.    The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating                              (2001/C 275/23)
      to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ 2000 C 285.
                                                                           ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l.
                                                                           and Fedon America USA Inc., represented by I. van Bael,
                                                                           A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, Avvocati.