title: Case T-128/14: Action brought on 21 February 2014 — Daimler v Commission

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/25

         Action brought on 21 February 2014 — Daimler v Commission
   (Case T-128/14)
   2014/C 151/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, B. Schirmer and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 13 December 2013 — SG.B.5/MF/rc — sg.dsg1.b.5(2013) 3963453 — GESTDEM 2013/4643;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the Commission’s decision on the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents relating to the procedure under Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC (1) in connection with the refusal of the French Republic to register certain vehicles of the applicant.
   The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

               1.

               Infringement of the right of access to the file

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission erroneously denied it a right of access to its file under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It submits that it is directly and individually concerned by the procedure under Article 29 of Directive 2007/46. As such, it is entitled to a right of access to the file relating to it as a necessary condition for the effective exercise of its fundamental right to be heard.

               2.

               Infringement of the applicant’s rights under the Aarhus Convention (2)

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that there has been an infringement of the Aarhus Convention in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. (3) The documents the access to which is sought by the applicant concern environmental information. For legal and factual reasons, there cannot be a refusal on grounds of the protection of ongoing investigations. In particular, the requirements of the Aarhus Convention preclude a refusal.

               3.

               Infringement of the right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 15(3) TFEU and under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (4)

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and thereby Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because the applicant has a right of access to the documents sought by it and that there are no exclusion grounds for refusal of access.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this regard that, contrary to its duty, the Commission refrained from carrying out an individual and specific assessment of the documents sought and erroneously based its decision on a general exception. Furthermore, there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the documents. Contrary to its duty, the Commission failed to recognise that fact. The Commission failed to carry out the necessary assessment under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and made a blanket reference to protection of the purpose of investigations.

               4.

               Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission did not give reasons for its decision in a manner which satisfies the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

      (2)  Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998.

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-234/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Innsbruck by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Rosmarie Kapferer against Schlank & Schick GmbH

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Innsbruck by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Rosmarie Kapferer against Schlank & Schick GmbH
   (Case C-234/04)
   (2004/C 251/01)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Regional Court Innsbruck) (Austria) of 26 May 2004 received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Rosmarie Kapferer against Schlank & Schick GmbH on the following questions:

               A)

               The jurisdiction decision of the court of first instance:

                           1)

                           Is the principle of cooperation enshrined in Article 10 EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances stated in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz, a national court is also obliged to review and reopen a final judicial decision if it should infringe Community law? Are there any other conditions applicable to the review and reopening of judicial decisions in contrast to administrative decisions?

                           2)

                           If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:
                           Is the period given under Paragraph 534 of the Zivilprozessordnung (Austrian Code of Civil Procedure) for the reopening of judicial decisions that are contrary to Community law compatible with the principle of full effectiveness of Community law?

                           3)

                           Furthermore, if the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:
                           Does a lack of international (or local) jurisdiction that is not remedied by Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters constitute a breach of Community law that, under the principles concerned, can set aside the legal force of a judicial decision?
                           If the answer to the third question should be in the affirmative:

                           4)

                           Is a court of appeal obliged to review the issue of international (or local) jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001 if the jurisdiction decision of the court of first instance has become final but the decision on the merits of the case has not? If so, is that review to be conducted by the court of its own motion or only at the instigation of one of the parties to the proceedings?

               B)

               Jurisdiction over consumer contracts under Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001:

                           1)

                           Does a misleading promise of financial benefit that helps to cause a contract to be concluded — that is to say, prepares the ground for a contract — demonstrate a sufficiently close connection with the intended conclusion of a consumer contract for jurisdiction over consumer contracts under Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 to be afforded to consequent claims?
                           If the answer to the first question should be in the negative:

                           2)

                           Is jurisdiction over consumer contracts afforded to claims arising out of a pre-contractual obligation and does a misleading promise of financial benefit that helps to prepare the ground for a contract demonstrate a sufficiently close connection with the pre-contractual obligation thereby established for jurisdiction over consumer contracts also to be afforded thereto?

                           3)

                           Is jurisdiction over consumer contracts afforded only if the conditions stipulated by the undertaking for participation in the prize game are satisfied, even if those conditions are not to be given any consideration in the substantive claim under Paragraph 5j of the Konsumentenschutzgesetz (Austrian Consumer Protection Law)?
                           If the answers to the first and second questions should be in the negative:

                           4)

                           Is jurisdiction over consumer contracts afforded sui generis to a specific statutory form of contractual performance claim or sui generis to a constructive quasi-contractual performance claim which arises as a result of a promise of financial benefit made by an undertaking and the claiming of the financial benefit by the consumer?

      (1)  OJ L 12, 2001, p. 1.


title: Case C-398/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by decision of that court of 12 October 1999, in the case of Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 6/16                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                 (2) If the answer to question (1) is in sense (i), must the retailer
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by decision of that                     adjust his input tax in his returns of VAT in relation to the
court of 12 October 1999, in the case of Yorkshire                            supply of the goods by the manufacturer (or, as the case
Co-operatives Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and                        may be, by the wholesaler) to him, where the manufacturer
                               Excise                                         or other supplier has not issued a credit note to the retailer
                                                                              for the reimbursement of the reduction?
                          (Case C-398/99)
                                                                         (1) Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                           (2000/C 6/29)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 12 October 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Yorkshire Co-operatives
Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-
                                                                         Holstein Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court
                                                                         of 22 September 1999 in the case of Peter Heinrich
(1) On the proper construction of Article 11A.1(a) and 11C.1             Thomsen against Amt für ländliche Räume, Husum, joined
     of the Sixth Directive (1), what is the taxable amount, in          as parties: 1. Helga Henningsen, 2. Ute Henningsen,
     relation to a supply of goods by a retailer in the position                                3. Peter Henningsen
     of the Appellant to a customer, where —
                                                                                (Case C-401/99)
     (a) the manufacturer of the goods has sold them to the
         retailer (or, hypothetically, to a wholesaler who has                                      (2000/C 6/30)
         sold them to the retailer),
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     (b) in the course of a sales promotion the manufacturer             European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holstein
         procures the issue of a coupon, the terms of which are:         Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Regional Court) of 22 Sep-
                                                                         tember 1999, received at the Court Registry on 18 October
                                                                         1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Heinrich
         (i) that the holder, on presenting the coupon to the            Thomsen against Amt für ländliche Räume (Office for Rural
              retailer, may buy the goods from the retailer at a         Areas), Husum, joined as parties: 1. Helga Henningsen, 2. Ute
              price which is less than the retailer’s normal selling     Henningsen, 3. Peter Henningsen on the following questions:
              price by an amount (‘the reduction’) specified in or
              ascertainable in accordance with the terms of the          (a) Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
              coupon, and                                                     of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in
                                                                              the milk and milk products sector to be construed as
         (ii) that the manufacturer, when the retailer has sold               meaning that, on the expiry of rural leases, the reference
              the goods in accordance with the terms of the                   quantities available on the holdings in question may be
              coupon and has presented the coupon to the                      transferred in whole or in part in accordance with pro-
              manufacturer, will pay to the retailer a sum equal              visions adopted or to be adopted by the Member States,
              to the reduction,                                               taking account of the legitimate interests of the parties,
                                                                              only if at the time of surrender the lessors are producers as
                                                                              defined in Article 9(c) of Regulation No 3950/92?
     (c) the retailer sells the goods to a customer on presen-
         tation of the coupon and on payment of the reduced              (b) If the notion of producer in Article 7(2) is to be understood
         price, and                                                           in a broader sense, is a transfer in such cases also possible
                                                                              where the lessors do not envisage taking up the marketing
                                                                              of milk but are desirous of transferring the reference
     (d) the retailer presents the coupon to the manufacturer
                                                                              quantities together with the land to third parties?
         and is paid a sum equal to the reduction?
                                                                         (c) If the answer to (b) is affirmative, must the third parties to
Is the taxable amount —                                                       whom the reference quantities are to be transferred
                                                                              be producers as defined in Article 9(c) of Regulation
                                                                              No 3950/92?
         (i) the cash sum paid by the customer, or
                                                                         (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
         (ii) the cash sum paid by the customer together with
              the sum equal to the reduction paid by the
              manufacturer?


title: Case T-483/13: Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/59

         Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission
   (Case T-483/13)
   2013/C 344/108
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Athanassios Oikonomopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and I. Zarzoura, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Award damages;

               —

               Declare that a series of OLAF’s actions and measures are legally non- existent and constitute inadmissible evidence.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by OLAF, as it was not entitled to conduct an investigation in the context of contractual relations between the Commission and a third party and acted ultra vires in the relevant investigation infringing several articles of the relevant legal framework, such as Council Regulation No 2185/96 (1) and Regulation No 1073/1999 (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 (3) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, violation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1073/1999, breach of the obligation to maintain confidentiality, violation of the right to private life, violation of the principle of sound administration, as OLAF and different DGs of the Commission acted unlawfully when processed personal data of the applicant and transmitted such personal data within the Commission, and third parties.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defense, as the applicant has very limited information on the facts that concern him in the context of the relevant investigation and consequently was not given the opportunity to defend himself against any eventual accusation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ 1996 L 292, p. 2)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1)

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)


title: Case C-277/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Interboves GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of animals during transport — Transport of bovine animals by sea between two geographical points of the Community — Vehicle loaded onto a vessel without unloading the animals — 12 hour rest period — Obligation)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Interboves GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-277/06) (1)

   (Directive 91/628/EEC - Export refunds - Protection of animals during transport - Transport of bovine animals by sea between two geographical points of the Community - Vehicle loaded onto a vessel without unloading the animals - 12 hour rest period - Obligation)
   (2009/C 69/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Interboves GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of point 48.7 (a) and (b) of Chapter VII of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) — Need to allow a 12 hour rest period after transporting bovine animals by sea between two points within the Community by means of a vehicle taken on board a vessel without unloading of the animals
   Operative part of the judgment

               —

               Point 48.7(a) of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, is to be interpreted as defining the general provisions applicable to transport by sea, including transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the European Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals, with the exception, so far as that type of vessel is concerned, of rest periods given to the animals after unloading, which are provided for in point 48.7(b) of that annex.

               —

               In accordance with that latter provision, whether there is a connection between the periods of transport by road preceding and following a period of transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals depends on whether or not the maximum duration of 28 hours of travel on a roll on/roll-off ferry referred to in paragraph 48.4(d) of the annex to Directive 91/628 has been exceeded.

               —

               Where the duration of transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals is less than the maximum duration of 28 hours, a period of transport by road can begin immediately after the animals are unloaded at the port of destination. In order to calculate the duration of that period, the duration of the period of transport by road which preceded transport by roll on/roll-off ferry should be taken into account, unless a rest period of at least 24 hours, in application of point 48.5 of the annex to Directive 91/628, has neutralised the period of transport by road preceding the transport by sea. It is for the national court to ascertain whether, in the dispute in the main proceedings, the journey at issue meets the abovementioned conditions.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-214/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose certain provisions of Directive 93/118/EC)

text:
C 28/8                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.1.2001
Article 19 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May               —     by fixing the amounts of the fees to be charged for health
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                         checks on the slaughter of animals and of those connected
relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax:                       with cutting operations of fresh meat at 50 % of the
uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the               standard Community rates, without giving reasons for
following must be excluded from the denominator of the fraction used               that reduction in accordance with the requirements of
to calculate the deductible proportions:                                           Chapter I of the annex to Directive 93/118, and
—     share dividends paid by its subsidiaries to a holding company
      which is a taxable person in respect of other activities and which     —     by exempting poultrymeat from the fee for the cutting of
      supplies management services to those subsidiaries, and                      fresh meat,
—     interest paid by the subsidiaries to the holding company on
      loans it has made to them, where the loan transactions do not          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      constitute, for the purposes of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive,   the EC Treaty and the said directive, in particular points 1, 2
      an economic activity of the holding company.                           and 5 of Chapter I of the annex thereto — the Court
                                                                             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rappor-
                                                                             teur) and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                   R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November
                                                                             2000, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that,
                                                                                —     by failing to mention, among the meat to which the fees
                                                                                fixed by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing
                                                                                of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                               poultrymeat apply, the category corresponding to soli-
                                                                                peds/equidae, and
                        of 16 November 2000
                                                                                —     by not explicitly mentioning poultrymeat for the purposes
in Case C-214/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                    of the application of the fee for the cutting of fresh meat
                     ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                                        fixed by that directive,
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
   to transpose certain provisions of Directive 93/118/EC)                         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                the provisions of the first and third subparagraphs of Article
                                                                                3(1) of Directive 93/118 and points (b) and (e) of the first
                            (2001/C 28/14)                                         indent of point 1 and point (a) of the first indent of point 2 of
                                                                                the annex thereto, taken together;
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.
In Case C-214/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: I.K.
Chalkias and N. Dafniou) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
—     by failing to mention, among the meat to which the fees
      fixed by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
      1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing
      of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and
      poultrymeat (OJ 1993 L 340 p. 15) apply, the category
      corresponding to solipeds/equidae,


title: Case T-259/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Algusa Algodinera Utrerana v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/51

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Algusa Algodinera Utrerana v Council and Commission
   (Case T-259/07)
   (2007/C 211/97)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Algusa Algodinera Utrerana SA (Sevilla, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare under Article 288 EC that the applicant is entitled to have damage totalling seven hundred and twenty one thousand three hundred and fifty five euros (EUR 721 355) made good by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-513/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Gent (Belgium)) — Mark Kerckhaert, Bernadette Morres v Belgische Staat (Income tax — Dividends — Tax burden on dividends from shareholdings in companies established in another Member State — No possibility in the State of residence to set off income tax levied at source in another Member State)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Gent (Belgium)) — Mark Kerckhaert, Bernadette Morres v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-513/04) (1)

   (Income tax - Dividends - Tax burden on dividends from shareholdings in companies established in another Member State - No possibility in the State of residence to set off income tax levied at source in another Member State)
   (2006/C 326/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Gent
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mark Kerckhaert, Bernadette Morres

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Gent — Interpretation of Article 56(1) EC — Restriction resulting from a national income tax provision — Domestic and foreign dividends — Uniform tax rate — Tax burden higher in regard to dividends from shareholdings in companies established in another Member State — Taxation at source — Not taken into account — Free movement of capital — Discrimination
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as Belgian tax legislation, which, in the context of tax on income, makes dividends from shares in companies established in the territory of that State and dividends from shares in companies established in another Member State subject to the same uniform rate of taxation, without providing for the possibility of setting off tax levied by deduction at source in that other Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-282/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Sun Chemical Group and Others v Commission (Competition — Concentration — European rosin resin market for printing ink applications — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers — Market shares and concentration levels — Non-coordinated effects — Coordinated effects — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Sun Chemical Group and Others v Commission
   (Case T-282/06) (1)

   (Competition - Concentration - European rosin resin market for printing ink applications - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers - Market shares and concentration levels - Non-coordinated effects - Coordinated effects - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2007/C 199/72)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Sun Chemical Group and Others (Weesp, Netherlands); Siegwerk Druckfarben AG (Sieburg, Germany) and Flint Group Germany GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Dodoo and K.H. Eichhorn, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The Apollo Group (New York, New York, United States) and Hexion Speciality Chemicals, Inc. (Columbus, Ohio (United States)) (represented by: I.M. Sinan, Barrister and J. Uphoff, Solicitor)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 29 May 2006 declaring compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement the concentration concerning the acquisition by Hexion Speciality Chemicals (The Apollo Group) of full control of Akzo Nobel's Inks and Adhesive Resins business (Case COMP/M.4071- Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sun Chemical Group BV, Siegwerk Druckfarben AG and Flint Group Germany GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission and of the interveners.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-101/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2010 — Gentcho Pavlov and Gregor Famira v Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2010 — Gentcho Pavlov and Gregor Famira v Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien
   (Case C-101/10)
   2010/C 134/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gentcho Pavlov and Gregor Famira

      Defendant: Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, (1) have been directly applied in the period from 2 January 2004 to 31 December 2006 in a procedure to register a Bulgarian national in the list of trainee lawyers?
               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Does Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, preclude the application of Paragraph 30(1) and (5) of the Austrian Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Lawyers’ Code), pursuant to which, inter alia, proof of Austrian citizenship or a nationality regarded as equivalent is a registration requirement, in respect of an application by a Bulgarian national employed by an Austrian lawyer, made on 2 January 2004, for registration in the list of Austrian trainee lawyers and for the issue of a ‘Legitimationsurkunde’ (certificate evidencing authority) in accordance with Paragraph 15(3) of the Austrian Rechtsanwaltsordnung and the rejection of the application solely on the grounds of nationality, despite the other requirements being fulfilled and the applicant having a permanent residence and work permit for Austria?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 358, 31.12.1994, p. 3


title: Case C-93/00: Action brought on 10 March 2000 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
13.5.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 135/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Ter-              the Court should:
cera, by order of that court of 14 February 2000 in the
case of Telefónica de España, S.A. and Administración del          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative,
                  Estado and Retevisión, S.A.                             to communicate to the Commission, within the period
                                                                           prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                         (Case C-79/00)                                    visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                           96/86/EC (1)of 13 December 1996 adapting to technical
                        (2000/C 135/15)                                    progress Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation
                                                                           of the laws of the Member States with regard to the
                                                                           transport of dangerous goods by road, the Hellenic Repub-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
European Communities by an order of the Tribunal Supremo,                  that directive.
Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Tercera
(Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Division, Third
                                                                      (2) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Telefónica
de España, S.A. and Administración del Estado and Retevisión,
S.A., on the following question:                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Does a combined interpretation of Articles 4(2) and 9(2), in          The binding nature of the third paragraph of Articles 249 and
relation to Annex VII (Part 2(c)) of Directive 97/33/EC (1) of        10 EC (formerly Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) requires
the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997            Member States to take the measures necessary to transpose
on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to               directives into their legal system before the expiry of the period
ensuring universal service and interoperability through appli-        prescribed for that purpose and to notify those measures to
cation of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP),             the Commission immediately. When the relevant time-limit
allow                                                                 expired on 1 January 1997 the Hellenic Republic had not
                                                                      notified the Commission of measures transposing the directive
a) the national regulatory authorities to impose ex ante on an        in question into national law.
    operator having significant market power the obligation
    to provide other operators with access to the subscriber
    loop and to offer interconnection at local and higher-level       (1) OJ 1996 L 335, p. 43.
    switching centres;
b) or, on the contrary, do those authorities have the power
    — with regard to access and interconnection at those
    specific network points — only ‘to promote’ agreements
    negotiated between the various operators, but not to
    impose such access and interconnection as an ex ante
    obligation on an operator with significant market power?
                                                                      Action brought on 10 March 2000 by the European
(1) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.                                        Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-93/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/17)
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties on 10 March 2000 by the European Parliament, represent-
                         (Case C-85/00)                               ed by Christian Pennera, Head of Division in its Legal Service,
                                                                      and Evelyn Waldherr, a Member of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                      Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                        (2000/C 135/16)
                                                                      Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Mail and
                                                                      Registration Service, Alcide de Gasperi Building, Kirchberg.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Legal Advisor, and Maria Patakia, both of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            — annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/99 of 21 Decem-
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal                   ber 1999 providing for the general rules for a compulsory
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         beef labelling system (1);
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.5.2000
— in the affirmative, maintain the effects of the annulled                for a compulsory beef-labelling system’ within the pre-
    regulation in force until the Parliament and the Council              scribed period.
    adopt a new measure in accordance with Article 152 EC;
                                                                     (1) OJ 1999 L 334, p. 1.
                                                                     (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals
                                                                         and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ 1997
                                                                         L 117, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Lack of power on the part of the Council: Regulation               Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-400/97, C-
    No 2772/99 is based on Article 19 of Regulation (EC)                                  401/97 and C-402/97 (1)
    No 820/97(2), whereby, in accordance with the third
    indent of Article 202 EC, the Council reserved the right                                  (2000/C 135/18)
    to exercise implementing powers directly. In adopting
    Regulation No 2772/99, however, the Council altered the          By order of 16 February 2000 the President of the Court of
    temporal application of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    thus acted outside its implementing power, which contains        from the register of Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-
    neither the power to extend the application of the volun-        402/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
    tary labelling system beyond 31 December 1999 nor the            Superior de Justicia del Paı́s Vasco): Administración del Estado
    power to postpone the introduction of the compulsory             v Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa and Others.
    beef-labelling system.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
— Infringement of the prerogatives of the European Parlia-
    ment: By the contested regulation, the Council effectively
    altered the substance of Regulation (EC) No 820/97. By
    adopting it on the basis of Article 19 of Regulation (EC)
    No 820/97 rather than doing so in accordance with Article               Removal from the register of Case C-152/99 (1)
    152 EC, the Council excluded the participation of the
                                                                                (2000/C 135/19)
    European Parliament in the codecision and thus infringed
    the Parliament’s prerogatives.                                   By order of 21 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
— Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 829/97: The Council             from the register of Case C-152/99: Commission of the
    failed to comply with the obligations imposed by Article         European Communities v Ireland.
    19 of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 itself by not adopting
    the implementation measures consisting of ‘general rules         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1998.


title: Case T-303/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Nölle v OHIM — Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Nölle v OHIM — Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)
   (Case T-303/07) (1)

   (2009/C 6/86)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-159/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.

text:
C 169/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
1.2.2.2. Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them        Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries            26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
of that motorway?                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
1.3.      If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative:                                 (Case C-160/02)
1.3.1. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/                                        (2002/C 169/33)
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or,             European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired?         Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
1.3.2. If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
                                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
                                                                          following question:
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed?                                                           Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
                                                                          Council on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32.                                               of their families moving within the Community, as amended
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42.                                               and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827.                                                   2 December 1996 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
                                                                          provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
                                                                          über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
                                                                          selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
                                                                          on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
                                                                          merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
                                                                          constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                  meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the                     coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail                regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
           Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.                     who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
                                                                          of that benefit?
                          (Case C-159/02)
                                                                          (1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
                          (2002/C 169/32)                                 (2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit,                 Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question:              the European Communities against the French Republic
‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the                                     (Case C-161/02)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently                                               (2002/C 169/34)
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
before the English courts?’                                               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-669/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spirlea and Spirlea v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/17

         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spirlea and Spirlea v Commission
   (Case T-669/11)
   2012/C 65/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Cappezzano Piamore, Italy) and Mihaela Spirlea (Cappezzano Piamore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Accept the present application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               declare the application admissible; and

               —

               declare it well-founded, and accordingly find that the Commission has committed substantial procedural irregularities and other substantive errors of law;

               —

               on that basis annul the decision of the Commission’s Secretariat-General of 9 November 2011 (SG.B.5/MKu/rc-Ares(2011));

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Failure to adhere to the order of assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               The applicants submit that the defendant failed to fulfil its assessment obligation under Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and to adhere to the mandatory order of assessment provided for by that regulation.

               2.

               Breach of the principle of equality of arms
               The applicants submit that the Member State concerned was informed of the substance of the applicants’ reasons for requiring access to the document requested, but that, by contrast, the contested decision contains only rudimentary statements regarding the substance of the German authorities’ response.

               3.

               Breach of the applicants’ right to be heard
               The applicants submit that the defendant withheld the substance of the German authorities’ answer from them and that the applicants were unable to comment on the merits of the Member State’s opposition having regard to the requisite exceptions under Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               4.

               Non-rejection of the second exception
               In the applicants’ view, the defendant failed in its duty to rule out the second exception claimed by the German authorities (Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001).

               5.

               Failure to identify the document to which the applicants seek access
               In the applicants’ view, the defendant failed in its duty to describe in precise terms — with regard to the number of pages and the author — the document to which access was refused.

               6.

               Breach of the right to be heard in the context of the consultation procedure
               The applicants submit that the defendant’s failure to make the request for consultation issued to the German authorities available to the applicants is contrary to recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants also object to the fact that the German authorities’ answer was not made available to them.

               7.

               Unlawful application of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001
               The applicants object to the fact that the Commission extended the scope of application of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to ‘German authorities’ and, moreover, made manifest errors of assessment in its examination of and reasoning as regards the circumstances provided for under Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               8.

               No specific consideration of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001
               It is claimed that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to the documents under Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that the document as a whole was brought within the scope of Article 4(2) of that regulation.

               9.

               Overriding public interest in disclosure (Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001)

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-505/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret, Denmark) — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet (Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Exemption — Concept of ‘navigation’ — Fuel used for an excavator affixed to a vessel and operating independently of the vessel’s engine)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/19

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret, Denmark) — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet
      (Case C-505/10) (1)

      (Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Exemption - Concept of ‘navigation’ - Fuel used for an excavator affixed to a vessel and operating independently of the vessel’s engine)
      (2012/C 25/31)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Højesteret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Partrederiet Sea Fighter

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Exemption for mineral oils used as fuel for the purposes of navigation — Concept of ‘for the purposes of navigation’ — Mineral oils used as fuel for an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but having its own separate motor and fuel tank and thus operating independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion engine, are not exempt from excise duties.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case F-42/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — Skareby v Commission (Civil service — Duty to provide assistance — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-42/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Duty to provide assistance - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior)
   2012/C 217/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant:
      Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant:
      European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision refusing the request for assistance relating to psychological harassment of which the applicant claims to have been a victim.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Skareby to pay, in addition to her own costs, three quarters of the costs of the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 55.


title: Case C-84/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH v Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark including the word element ‘XKING’ — Opposition by the proprietor of national marks and an international registration including the word element ‘X’ — Rejection of opposition by the Board of Appeal — Likelihood of confusion — Distortion of the evidence)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH v Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-84/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark including the word element ‘XKING’ - Opposition by the proprietor of national marks and an international registration including the word element ‘X’ - Rejection of opposition by the Board of Appeal - Likelihood of confusion - Distortion of the evidence))
   (2017/C 309/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin (represented by: E. Carrillo, abogada), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin;

               3.

               Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-344/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/50

      Action brought on 20 August 2010 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-344/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/94)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany), (represented by: T.R. Ottervanger and E.V.A. Henny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position in case C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — Germany/Deutsche Post; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, a declaration that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position in case C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — Germany/Deutsche Post ((OJ 2007 C 245, p. 21).
      In support of their action, the applicants submit that since the Commission has not defined its position in the above mentioned investigation procedure within a reasonable time period, it has breached Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1).
      In addition, by failing to define its position within a reasonable time period, the Commission has also breached the principles of good administration and legal certainty. According to the applicants, the principle of sound administration should have been respected since it is one of the general principles common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States. Moreover, this principle is clearly reflected in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-383/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/33

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
   (Case T-383/16) (1)

   (2017/C 178/51)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 September 1997 in Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Aid to the steel sector - Application for annulment - Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 370/6                 I EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 12 . 97
Criminal District Court, Venice ), First Chamber, which                          Italian State, as having direct effect in favour of
was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 1997,                           trainee specialist doctors, in the sense of conferring on
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cinzia Gozza and                         them an unrestricted right, as against the competent
Others v. ( 1 ) Università degli Studi di Padova;                                authorities of the State, to receive appropriate
( 2 ) Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e                    remuneration corresponding to the work performed in
Tecnologica ; ( 3 ) Ministero della Sanità ; and ( 4 ) Ministero               • the course of their professional training ?
della Pubblica Istruzione, on the following questions:
                                                                           2 . If the existence of the aforementioned right is
                                                                                recognized, what are the criteria for determining
1 . Does the provision in Directive 82/76/EEC (') under                          ' appropriate remuneration' with regard to both full
      which both full-time and part-time training of medical                     time and part-time training activities ?
      specialists ' shall be subject to appropriate
      remuneration' fall to be construed, even for the period              (') Council Directive of 26 January 1982 , OJ L 43 , 15 . 2 . 1982 ,
      during which no specific rules were adopted by the                        p. 21 .
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 29 September 1997                                                      of 29 September 1997
in Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau v.                      in Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia v. Commission of
         Commission of the European Communities (')                                          the European Communities ( 1 )
 (State aid — Aid to the steel sector — Application for                    (State aid — Aid to the steel sector — Application for
annulment — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty —                                annulment — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty —
                              Inadmissibility)                                                         Inadmissibility)
                               ( 97/C 370/ 14                                                           ( 97/C 370/ 15 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau,                        In Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia , represented by Jean
residing in Clabecq and Tubize ( Belgium ) respectively,                   Marie de Backer, Olivier Ralet and Georges
represented by Patrice Bonbled, Caroline Sokolowitch and                   Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 Olivier Gemberling, of the Brussels Bar, 239/4 Rue Gatti                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
de Gamond, Brussels, against Commission of the                             Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
 European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —                            European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/                       application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/
271 /ECSC of 18 December 1996 on financial assistance                      271 /ECSC of 18 December 1996 on financial assistance
granted by the Region of Wallonia to the steel undertaking                 granted by the Region of Wallonia to the steel undertaking
 Forges de Clabecq ( OJ L 106 , 24 . 4 . 1997, p. 30 ) — the               Forges de Clabecq ( OJ L 106 , 24 . 4. 1997, p. 30 ) — the
 Court     of   First     Instance     ( First Chamber,     Extended       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
 Composition ), composed of A. Saggio, President, A.                       Composition ), composed of A. Saggio, President, A.
 Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and K. J.                     Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili , R. M. Moura Ramos and K. J.
 Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar^ has made an order on                 Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
 29 September 1997, the operative part of which is as                      29 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
 follows :                                                                 follows :
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                          1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
 2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                             2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
 (') OJ C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997 .                                               (') OJ C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997 .


title: Case C-268/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/17/EC — Public procurement proceedings in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-268/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/17/EC - Public procurement proceedings in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors)
   (2008/C 79/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-612/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2016 — C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2016 — C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-612/16)
   (2017/C 038/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a statute of limitations apply to the collection of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 (1) of 18 August 2016 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (2) of 13 September 2016 (together referred to as ‘Contested Regulations’'), and, if so, on the basis of which legal provision?

               2.

               Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they lack a valid legal basis, and as such violate Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU?

               3.

               Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 266 TFEU by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International?

               4.

               Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (3) or the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity) by imposing an anti-dumping duty on import of certain leather footwear originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) 1472/2006 (4) and Council Regulation (EU) 1294/2009 (5)?

               5.

               Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by re-imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment?

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 OJ L 225, p. 52

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 OJ L 245, p. 16

      (3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union OJ L 176, p. 21

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam OJ L 275, p. 1

      (5)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 OJ L 352, p. 1


title: Case T-522/12: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2014  — Alfa-Beta Vassilopoulos v OHIM — Henkel (AB terra Leaf)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/54

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2014 — Alfa-Beta Vassilopoulos v OHIM — Henkel (AB terra Leaf)
   (Case T-522/12) (1)

   2014/C 142/69
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Camar SRL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-79/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/ 13
compulsorily 'reassigning' her from her post in OP/DIR,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
External Staff Administration , to post OP/4 , Group A
' Publications '.
                                                                      — declare , in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                          that the Commission has infringed Article 30 of
First, the post she had previously occupied became vacant                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 and the second
following her departure and, secondly, the new post had                   subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, by
been vacant before the so-called ' reassignment'. She could               failing to take the steps necessary to enable the applicant
not therefore have been transferred with her post, so that the            to overcome the following difficulties :
contested measure was incorrectly described by the
defendant as a reassignment.                                              — on account of the crisis in Somalia , it is impossible to
                                                                               procure sufficient quantities of Somalian bananas to
The applicant points out in particular the manner in which                     meet traditional marketing needs , and
the contested decision prejudices her career prospects
inasmuch as , first, the duties attaching to the post to which            — by virtue of the restrictions imposed by Council
she has been reassigned are clearly beneath her abilities,                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , it is impossible to use
qualifications and duties previously performed and ,                           bananas from other sources,
secondly, the reassignment in question appears to be a
disguised disciplinary measure imposed on the applicant on            — declare that the Commission is under a duty to take
account of the allegedly bad relations with her immediate                 adequate measures for the future ,
superior.
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay compensation , pursuant to
The applicant claims in this respect that Articles 4 and 29 of
                                                                          Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the Staff Regulations have been infinged inasmuch as any
                                                                          the EC Treaty, for the damage suffered by the applicant
transfer properly so called must observe the formalities                  as a result of the Commission's failure to act,
provided for in those two provisions which , as stated above ,
was not the case here .
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
Secondly, the applicant complains that the appointing                     applicant in the present proceedings .
authority disregarded Article 7 of the Staff Regulations
inasmuch as the ' reassignment', which is the subject of the
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dispute, was effected neither in the interest of the service nor
in observance of equivalence between posts . The quality of
the work of the applicant has never been criticized . On the          Camar, the only Community operator which traditionally
contrary, her sense of responsibility and initiative , her            trades in Somalian bananas , complains that the Commission
efficiency and her competence have been acknowledged in               failed to adopt the measures provided for under Article 30 of
her staff reports .                                                   Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 in order to enable it to
                                                                      overcome the difficulties in obtaining supplies of bananas as
                                                                      a result of the critical situation in Somalia and the
Finally, the applicant claims that the duty to have regard for
her welfare as an official has been breached and that there           restrictions imposed by Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 .
has been a misuse of powers .
                                                                      Camar emphasizes that before the common organization of
                                                                      the market in bananas took effect, it was able to offset a
                                                                      shortfall in Somalian bananas with bananas from other ACP
                                                                      countries or from third countries . Thereafter, however, that
                                                                      was no longer possible , because bananas from both ACP
                                                                      states and non-ACP third countries are subject to quotas
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Camar SRL against the                and, in the latter case, without reference quantities it is
          Commission of the European Communities                      impossible to obtain licences giving access to the quota .
                         ( Case T-79/96
                           ( 96/C 233/24 )                            According to Camar, although the lack of Somalian bananas
                                                                      on account of the war and the subsequent continuing crisis is
                                                                      outside the Commission's control , that institution is
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                     nevertheless accountable for not having taken cognizance of
                                                                      the fact that Community supplies were depleted by the
An action against the Commission of the European                      60 000 tonnes designated in the Annex to Regulation ( EEC )
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    No 404/93 as traditional quantities , which the Council took
 Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1996 by               into account when fixing the tariff quota for third-country
 Camar SRL, a company established in Florence ( Italy ),              and non-traditional ACP bananas, and for not having
 represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà , and assisted by Dr            adopted appropriate measures to compensate for that
                                                                      shortfall .
 Mariano Paolin and Dr . Simonetta Donà , all of the Padua
 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt,                  According to Camar, it is clear from the various recitals in
 BP 39 .                                                              the preambles to the regulations adopted by the
 ---pagebreak---  No C 233/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
 Commission in order to combat the difficulties caused by               she carried out in Portugal , as an employee in the private
the tropical storms 'Debbie', ' Iris ', 'Luis ' and 'Marilyn' that      sector, various duties as an 'empregada ' and 'escriturâria ',
adaptation of the tariff quota should have enabled, and                 involving work as a secretary and/or shorthand typist.
 must enable, the Community market to be adequately
 supplied and compensation to be paid to operators who                  The applicant maintains that there has been a breach of the
have suffered damage through being unable to supply the                 notice of competition and a manifest error of assessment.
 Community market with bananas from the regions or                      The special conditions for admission to the competition in
countries affected by the disaster, and that analogous                  question included point ( d ), which required an in-depth
measures were previously taken by the national authorities              knowledge of the French language . In addition, point ( d ) of
 before the common organization of the market took effect.              those special conditions required candidates to show that, at
There was, and therefore still is, an obligation to take the            the date of publication of the notice of competition, they had
same action in the context of that organization . These                 two years ' professional experience as a secretary and/or
arguments are also valid in the case of the insufficient                shorthand typist. The conditions laid down by the notice of
availability of Somalian bananas , since the fact that this was         competition do not state that the professional experience
caused by a war rather than a cyclone is of little                      required has to have been obtained in French . According to
relevance .                                                             the applicant, however, the express rejection clearly
                                                                        establishes that, having regard to the nature of the
On that basis, Camar views the Commission's failure to                  competition, only activities carried on within the
adopt measures as a breach of the principles underlying the             Commission could be regarded as valid experience for the
common organization of the market in bananas, namely                    purposes of the competition .
that all economic operators should be protected, that
Community rules should be adapted in the face of                        Second, the selection board committed a manifest error of
unforeseen or special difficulties, and that there may be no            assessment in considering that the terms 'empregada ' and
discrimination .
                                                                        'escrituraria ' do not necessarily entail work as a secretary or
                                                                        shorthand typist .
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Ana Maria Fernandes
 Leite Mateus against the Council of the European Union
                          ( Case T-80/96 )                              Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Christos Apostolidis
                            ( 96/C 233 /25 )                            and 64 others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                                                 ( Case T-81/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/26 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                              (Language of the case: French)
Communities on 24 May 1 996 by Ana Maria Fernandes
Leite Mateus, residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), represented
by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel ,              An action against the Commission of the European
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue             Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1996 by
Glesener .                                                              Christos Apostolidis and 64 others, all employed in the
                                                                       European Institute for Transuranic Elements ( Karlsruhe ),
                                                                       represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
— annul the decision of the selection board in competition             Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener.
    Conseil/C/360 of 3 October 1995 not to admit her to the
    competition,
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       — declare that the Commission has acted wrongfully by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         failing to adopt the measures required in order to comply
                                                                            with the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the                  Chamber ) of 27 October 1994 in Case T-64/92 ,
decision of the selection board not to admit her to the tests in
competition Conseil/C/360 for the constitution of a reserve            — annul        the   Commission's      decision   rejecting     the
for future recruitment of French-language secretaries, on the               applicants ' request for the drawing-up of their pay slips
ground that she had failed to show that she had two years '                 for January 1992 and for the payment to each applicant
professional experience as a secretary and/or shorthand                     of the sum of Bfrs 50 000 by way of compensation for
typist . She states in that regard that between 1973 and 1979               the non-material damage suffered,


title: Case C-62/16: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania
      (Case C-62/16) (1)

      (2016/C 454/36)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.